Gray Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 They went from 750,000 members to less than 250,000 in a very short time frame. The change in membership was directly correlated to changing doctrines in an effort to appease the desires of carnal humans. I know that does not jibe with your view of God, church, and gospel, but unfortunately, you don't get to decide for humanity what is true or even right. In this life you may satiate yourself on the teachings of man, but the eternal realms are governed by an all-knowing Father that has given commandments and teachings to follow. When did they start ordaining women, and when did their numbers start dropping? Do you have any evidence that there is a correlation between the two? CFR please. Many churches ordain women, some have done so for more than a century. Many are doing better than we are, numbers wise. n this life you may satiate yourself on the teachings of man, but the eternal realms are governed by an all-knowing Father that has given commandments and teachings to follow. The song "Jesus He Knows Me" by Genesis just popped into my head.
Gray Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) The law of Chasity is pretty clear what is in bounds and what is out of bounds. The fact that is does not formally mention homosexuality is not relevant as there is a host of other sexual practices that people involve themselves in that are also not mentioned but hardly anyone would say are not violations of it. Anyone who think that homosexuality (anything beyond just simple orientation) is not a violation of that law simply deceive themselves or are looking for excuses. Does the law of chastity need a hedge around it? Because it stands the only somewhat canonized (assuming we can include the temple ceremonies as an unpublished kind of canon) expression we have of it about marital fidelity between spouses. The gender or orientation is not specified. Edited March 25, 2015 by Gray
Gray Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 What attracted the early pagans to christianity was not that it was just like the pagan faith but that it was different. It offered a different way of being in the world. And such a way of being became a magnet for others to experience. Christianity would have died if it succumbed to the ways of the pagans. In fact, in those countries today, where christianity has succumbed to modern day paganism, christianity is dying and in Europe, it will be replaced by a traditional islam (not radical islam). Christianity will be a minor faith with secularism and islam struggling for people's hearts. Actually much of early Christianity's growth might be attributed to some accommodation, including the adoption of "pagan" holidays and practices. Fundamentalism is the path of least resistance for any church. But is it the right path?
Gray Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) I'm well aware that the Community of Christ, being an early break-off from the Church of Jesus Christ, seems to be something of a model for what some want the Church of Jesus Christ to become. I'm not saying that numbers necessarily equate to truth, but it does strike me that the fact that the C of C has lost two-thirds of its number and appears to be languishing as a result of its liberalization in recent times argues against the notion that we must accommodate the world's whims in order to survive or thrive. Assuming for the sake of argument that membership growth is an important goal, where do you think we'd be now if we still banned black members from priesthood & temple marriage? I suspect we'd have lost a large proportion of our membership by now. Edited March 25, 2015 by Gray
JLHPROF Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Fundamentalism is the path of least resistance for any church. But is it the right path? Depends on the source of that religion. If we truly believe it comes from God then sticking to the fundamentals as revealed only makes sense. Making changes of our own accord would be foolish. However, if we believe the Church is man made and man run then we can change anything we want as many sectarians do. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 Assuming for the sake of argument that membership growth is an important goal, where do you think we'd be now if we still banned black members from priesthood & temple marriage? I suspect we'd have lost a large proportion of our membership by now.That was a condition that had to change and was expected to change all along, the reason being that there are areas of the world where the Church could not have thrived without priesthood leadership among the indigenous black populations. Same-sex "marriage," on the other hand, is absolutely unnecessary -- in society, and certainly in the Church of Jesus Christ -- and furthermore, there has never been a hint of an expectation that such a thing would ever be accepted in the Church. This is one of the most blatant apples-to-cumquats comparisons I've seen or expect to see.
california boy Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Personally, I think SSM is just about a non issue with religion today. There are way more reasons why people are leaving religion and will continue to leave religion. There is a crisis going on with most all religions. What was once taught as being truth is now, by most reasonable people, believed to be false. Adam and Eve being the beginning of the human race, the age of the earth, the flood, and for Mormons the list is even longer. It used to be that people went to churches to find the truth or at least be assured of the truth. It certainly was one of the major claims of Mormonism when it was established. "This is the church where truth can be found." Now that "truth" has been tested and religion is no longer a place people trust to find truth. Mormonism itself has shifted from many of the doctrines it once taught as truths. It seems like on a regular basis, the church is issuing these new essays that contradict the teachings that were once taught for decades. Many people ask, "If you can't trust that religion holds truths, then what good is religion." Many leave over those issues. Gay marriage may be an issue, but it is not usually "the" issue unless you are gay. The flip side is religion continues to do what it has always done really well. It creates a community. It gives structure to families. It points the way to how people should pattern their lives. And whether the church is "true" or not becomes less important than what kind of person it helps us in becoming. We strive to be something better than we are. Christ points the way and His teachings encourage and directs change for the good. The LDS church does a particularly good job of helping families reach that goal. Most people are better because they are Mormons. So why worry about all the doctrinal issues that really aren't that important. So what if the church doesn't accept gay marriage. The question is, does the church make me a better person for following it's teachings. If the answer is yes, then people stay. If the answer is no, then people leave. Now this is where gay marriage comes into play. If people think that gay marriage is immoral, then that issue helps them continue to attend that church. They feel they are on the same path that Christ outlined If one believes a church leads them away from the path that Christ gave us, then how is that church the right place to be? These are the doctrines a church can teach about gay marriage and being gay that some people feel leads them away from the gospel of Christ and is against His teachings. If you are gay then you are not going to be allowed in heaven. You must become straight or God won't let you into heaven. Only straight people will be allowed in heaven. Being celibate by choice is what Gods wants you to do if you are gay. Being celibate by choice if you are straight is a sin. Being married is a sin if you are gay. Being married if you are straight is not a sin Serving a gay couple is a sin. Not serving a straight couple is a sin. Discriminate against gay couples is what God wants us to do. Discriminating against someone who is straight is a sin. The law of chastity is sex outside of marriage is a sin unless you are gay. Than any sex is a sin. Sex within the bounds of marriage is not a sin if you are straight. Some people see a conflict in what Christ taught and what their church teaches. It just doesn't seem right. We are all children of God. God wants all of His children to find happiness both in this life and the life to come. Men are that they might have joy even if you are gay. Being married is part of God's plan of happiness. Marriage teaches us valuable lessons on how to be Christ like. It should be offered to all of God's children. It is not good for man to be alone just because you are gay. Why would God have a completely different set of rules for some of His children because of something that they were born with? We have come to believe that being born black shouldn't make a difference, why is being born gay something that makes a difference? This is not really a liberal vs conservative debate, but rather how people read and understand for themselves the teachings of the Savior and not what churches say. If you don't believe your church has all the truthful answers, then you are more likely to try and find out what is true and what is not true on your own and how you read the scriptures. You are not going to stay in a church that you feel teaches against the teachings of Christ. The church has many members who feel that not all the doctrine the church teaches is in sync with the gospel that Christ taught. A lot leave. Many stay, but hope that the church will change it's position. And many stay, not believing in all the church doctrine, but because of the community the church creates and the strength it gives them in raising a family. And some believe every single thing the church teaches comes directly from the mouth of God himself. And even when something deep inside of them they might question such teachings, they are willing to conform their own personal beliefs to the doctrine of the church because they believe it comes from God.
Gray Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 That was a condition that had to change and was expected to change all along, the reason being that there are areas of the world where the Church could not have thrived without priesthood leadership among the indigenous black populations. Same-sex "marriage," on the other hand, is absolutely unnecessary -- in society, and certainly in the Church of Jesus Christ -- and furthermore, there has never been a hint of an expectation that such a thing would ever be accepted in the Church. This is one of the most blatant apples-to-cumquats comparisons I've seen or expect to see. I'm not talking about what was expected internally, I'm talking about the pressures of belonging to a religion that discriminates based on race. While that would have been hard in 1977, it would be unbearable now. Who would remain in such a church in 2015? Not many. So my point is that I believe it will be just as difficult in 2035 to belong to a church that discriminates based on sexual orientation. It's not so hard now. We're just over the tipping point, just as we were with race a generation ago. Regarding expectations, I don't think early Utah members expected polygamy to come to an end. But it did. And not putting it to an end would have again severely curtailed church growth, even removing the threats of dissolution from the US government. Churches whose values become too radically at odds with society's will have trouble with recruitment and retention. They retain a small, core group of hard-core adherants, but they don't grow.
Gray Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Depends on the source of that religion. If we truly believe it comes from God then sticking to the fundamentals as revealed only makes sense. Making changes of our own accord would be foolish. However, if we believe the Church is man made and man run then we can change anything we want as many sectarians do. All churches are man made. Regardless of how inspired a group is, a church is at the end of the day a group of believers who associate together. Who else could make a church but men and women?
JLHPROF Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 All churches are man made. Regardless of how inspired a group is, a church is at the end of the day a group of believers who associate together. Who else could make a church but men and women? Not according to Mormon beliefs.And if all Churches are man made then what does it matter which Church you attend? God wouldn't care one way or the other and would bless you with all the same blessings.
stemelbow Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Not according to Mormon beliefs. And if all Churches are man made then what does it matter which Church you attend? God wouldn't care one way or the other and would bless you with all the same blessings. uh...as I see it, Mormons aren't blessed any more than other groups of people. In the end many who inherit celestial will have never been Mormon at all. The Church is not here to bless us, as I see it, but to help save mankind, which in the end may include some of us (many are called and few chosen).
JLHPROF Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 uh...as I see it, Mormons aren't blessed any more than other groups of people. Don't agree. In the end many who inherit celestial will have never been Mormon at all. Doctrinally false. The Church is not here to bless us, as I see it, but to help save mankind, which in the end may include some of us (many are called and few chosen). Salvation requires ordinances which require priesthood which only the LDS Church has.
carbon dioxide Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Does the law of chastity need a hedge around it? Because it stands the only somewhat canonized (assuming we can include the temple ceremonies as an unpublished kind of canon) expression we have of it about marital fidelity between spouses. The gender or orientation is not specified. I would say that gender or orientation does not have to be specified. There is a whole host of behavior that one can go through and most would not question that they are not violations of the law of Chastity. We can all go through our minds and list these things. Should we suggest to ourselves that perhaps they are ok because they are not specifically mentioned in the scriptures? If one has enough free time, they can rationalize pretty much any activity to justify it. Can one look the Lord in HIs face and tell the Lord that such behavior is acceptable and not a violation of the law? If the answer is no or one is not sure, best to avoid it. Be well within bounds than out of bounds when God judges us. Unlike society that changes, his judgement and position does not change and if we are on the wrong side, we lose and there is nobody to appeal his decision to. All decisions by him are final.
JLHPROF Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Unlike society that changes, his judgement and position does not change and if we are on the wrong side, we lose and there is nobody to appeal his decision to. All decisions by him are final. This argument would have more strength (and I agree with it BTW) if we hadn't allowed so much change already, even to the law of Chastity covenant and other temple covenants.
Gray Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Not according to Mormon beliefs.And if all Churches are man made then what does it matter which Church you attend? God wouldn't care one way or the other and would bless you with all the same blessings. Well, where you fall on this issue will depend on your personal beliefs about the nature of churches. But it seems obvious to me that from a very literal perspective all churches must be man-made, whether "true" or not. But in discussing these issues in the context of Mormonism, lines get blurred very quickly between the word "church" and the word "gospel"
Gray Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 I would say that gender or orientation does not have to be specified. There is a whole host of behavior that one can go through and most would not question that they are not violations of the law of Chastity. We can all go through our minds and list these things. Should we suggest to ourselves that perhaps they are ok because they are not specifically mentioned in the scriptures? If one has enough free time, they can rationalize pretty much any activity to justify it. Can one look the Lord in HIs face and tell the Lord that such behavior is acceptable and not a violation of the law? If the answer is no or one is not sure, best to avoid it. Be well within bounds than out of bounds when God judges us. Unlike society that changes, his judgement and position does not change and if we are on the wrong side, we lose and there is nobody to appeal his decision to. All decisions by him are final. "How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?" - President Uchtdorf 1
JLHPROF Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Well, where you fall on this issue will depend on your personal beliefs about the nature of churches. But it seems obvious to me that from a very literal perspective all churches must be man-made, whether "true" or not. But in discussing these issues in the context of Mormonism, lines get blurred very quickly between the word "church" and the word "gospel" I can accept that if we limit the word Church to refer to the earthly state-licensed organization. But that really isn't what is meant when someone says they are a member of the Church. At least, not usually.
stemelbow Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Don't agree. How do you account for those who are blessed that are not LDS then? Doctrinally false. No. It's true. Else why do we do baptisms for the dead? Salvation requires ordinances which require priesthood which only the LDS Church has. Which is used to bless those of the world and those dead, by having all their ordinances performed.
JLHPROF Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 "How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?" - President Uchtdorf Great quote, but should we really apply it to contradicting revealed truths? Even leaving out the debatable existence of a prior anti-SSM revelation. Is absolutely anything subject to change? It really all comes down to your view of revelation. And as I recall you don't believe in literal revelation, only in interpreted revelation. In which case a new or corrected interpretation is always a possibility.
JLHPROF Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 How do you account for those who are blessed that are not LDS then? I didn't say they weren't blessed. I said that LDS are MORE blessed. You said that Mormons aren't any more blessed, which is wrong. If you really want a list of blessings that LDS people can receive that other religions can't we can discuss it. But LDS members have far more blessings available to them. No. It's true. Else why do we do baptisms for the dead? We also do confirmations for the dead. Which includes confirming them "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" retroactively. You said "many who inherit celestial will have never been Mormon at all".There won't be a single person in the Celestial Kingdom who did not receive a baptism and confirmation. Everyone there will be of the Mormon faith. Guaranteed. Which is used to bless those of the world and those dead, by having all their ordinances performed. Of which blessing salvation is the greatest. You said "The Church is not here to bless us, as I see it, but to help save mankind".The blessing of salvation is the greatest blessing and comes from baptism into the Church and Kingdom.
Gray Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Great quote, but should we really apply it to contradicting revealed truths? Even leaving out the debatable existence of a prior anti-SSM revelation. Is absolutely anything subject to change? It really all comes down to your view of revelation. And as I recall you don't believe in literal revelation, only in interpreted revelation. In which case a new or corrected interpretation is always a possibility. I'm not aware of any revelation that refers to SSM in any way. But as you say that's debatable. But even if we had one, we can never assume that revelation is perfect. Greater light and knowledge is always possible. Is absolutely anything subject to change? No, I don't think so. I don't think loving God/loving one's neighbor is subject to change. Yes, you're right, I don't believe in literal word for word revelation. So sometimes when I discuss it I try to stick to things that are at least thought of as having a strong revelatory basis (canonized scripture), even though I don't think that scripture represents the literal words of God. I understand that puts me at odds with orthodoxy. But even if you believe in literal revelation, surely the element of human vessels would mean that such revelation would not be perfect. Edited March 25, 2015 by Gray
Gray Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 I can accept that if we limit the word Church to refer to the earthly state-licensed organization. But that really isn't what is meant when someone says they are a member of the Church. At least, not usually. Well, I think it's dangerous to attach too much importance to any earthly bureaucracy. Surely the point of any church is to teach good principles. If you get too hung up on which bureaucracy is the one true bureaucracy, you've already lost sight of the best of what any church has to offer. At least that's how I see it.
stemelbow Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 I didn't say they weren't blessed. I said that LDS are MORE blessed. You said that Mormons aren't any more blessed, which is wrong. If you really want a list of blessings that LDS people can receive that other religions can't we can discuss it. But LDS members have far more blessings available to them. What blessings? Anyone can have moneys and means. Anyone can have access to God's ear. Anyone can be infinitely blessed in any way, whether LDS or not. if its more a blessing to be raised LDS and receive the priesthood as a youth I don't see it, after all even people not LDS can be exalted. We also do confirmations for the dead. Which includes confirming them "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" retroactively. You said "many who inherit celestial will have never been Mormon at all". There won't be a single person in the Celestial Kingdom who did not receive a baptism and confirmation. Everyone there will be of the Mormon faith. Guaranteed. It begs the question of whether being retroactively baptized makes someone a Mormon, or not. Of which blessing salvation is the greatest. You said "The Church is not here to bless us, as I see it, but to help save mankind". The blessing of salvation is the greatest blessing and comes from baptism into the Church and Kingdom. We're just talking past each other. I'm just saying I see no blessings received by LDS in this life that other people can't and don't have.
carbon dioxide Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) "How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?" - President UchtdorfI don't think Pres Uchdorf would include the law of chastity in that. The good news is that he is alive so if he actually believes we are misunderstanding it, he can say it. Perhaps he will say so in conference. There are some things that we have been told that are true and the Holy Spirit does not need to revise it. Not everything is up for change. Edited March 25, 2015 by carbon dioxide
Scott Lloyd Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 Does it make more sense to politicize according to the whims and fashions of yesteryear? Those that conform to the mind of God and that have stood the test of time, yes.
Recommended Posts