Why A Meeting For The Ssm Letters?

[strappinglad]

Does anyone here believe that some time in the future , the Church will declare that SSS is OK within marriage but is breaking the Law of Chastity outside of marriage ?

Note: I did not make a spelling error.

[Calm]

I think you're just jealous that I am eating cake and lots of it to celebrate Canada Day and you're not so, I don't see your point

I am jealous. We wished each other a happy Canada Day, but we aren't celebrating it at all.

[DJBrown]

The essays are officially published by the Church.  Do you believe that they do not have the backing of the FP?

 

The Race and the Priesthood essay actually did "disavow all previous teachings regarding race".  Here is the statement:

 

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else.

 

All of those "theories" mentioned were taught by past prophets and apostles as doctrine.  From the 1969 FP letter:  "Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”  The 1969 letter also attributes the teaching to Joseph Smith, which is incorrect.

 

Yes- the essays are published by the church.  But you seem to dismiss statements from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve.  That seems like a weird order of authority to me.

 

So do you now reject the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price?  Those are still canonized and include words of the Lord which indicate a sign of a curse in skin color.  

 

How about Alma 13 and those who were foreordained to be High Priests on account of their great faith?  Is that wrong?

 

Was it wrong for Christ to withhold His teachings from those not of Israel?

 

And you are not showing the context of the quotation from the 1969 statement.  That sentence refers to the withholding of the Priesthood from individuals from African descent.  The essay does not say that the policy was wrong.  It says that it is not understood.

[rockpond]

Yes- the essays are published by the church.  But you seem to dismiss statements from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve.  That seems like a weird order of authority to me.

 

So do you now reject the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price?  Those are still canonized and include words of the Lord which indicate a sign of a curse in skin color.  

 

How about Alma 13 and those who were foreordained to be High Priests on account of their great faith?  Is that wrong?

 

Was it wrong for Christ to withhold His teachings from those not of Israel?

 

And you are not showing the context of the quotation from the 1969 statement.  That sentence refers to the withholding of the Priesthood from individuals from African descent.  The essay does not say that the policy was wrong.  It says that it is not understood.

 

I don't dismiss the statements of the FP and Q12.

 

The essays are Church doctrine.

 

I don't reject the Book of Mormon or Pearl of Great Price.  Prophets (even those in the ancient scripture) are fallible.  Not sure how else you reconcile current doctrine with the scriptural statements you are referencing here.

 

Christ is our Lord and Savior, if He chooses to withhold anything from anyone, I'll accept it.

 

I referenced the 1969 letter you can read the entire context.  There are numerous (far too many to cite) statements from past prophets and apostles wherein they taught, as doctrine, the statements that have now been disavowed in the Race essay.  Here's a link to the 1949 FP letter for you to read as well:  http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

[Scott Lloyd]

It'd be awesome if the Church promoted opening it up for discussion on a local level, in a Church setting. Read the letter or letters, and let people comment, question, and disagree. Of course I imagine it'll go much like reading it over the pulpit. Everyone will feel it necessary to agree and if they personally don't agree he/she won't feel welcome to offer comment.

The three-hour worship service is not an appropriate setting for open disagreement with the Church's teachings.

[tonie]

Does anyone here believe that some time in the future , the Church will declare that SSS is OK within marriage but is breaking the Law of Chastity outside of marriage ?

Note: I did not make a spelling error.

 

I do not believe the Church will ever declared same sex marriage "OK".

 

I understand why some people think the Church might.

[Rain]

I agree that a big part of this not being read in sacrament meeting has to do with the children.

I don't think it would be appropriate for the meeting anyway. Too many emotions etc that would get in the way of sacrament worship.

How to do the meeting:

Bishop: "Show of hands. Who here doesn't understand the church's position on SSM?"

No hands.

Bishop: "You can all pass your gases, er, go to your classes."

The end.

You are forgetting a very important part - how to treat others that disagree with you. It should be a no brainer, but it isn't. I have been so disheartened by how "followers of Christ" have reacted to this on both sides.

Rockpond - I understand your thoughts about whether this is revelation or not. I don't agree with you, but understand why you might not feel it is. I do think that a good point was made - that it doesn't make sense that you would accept the essays as doctrine, but not this statement.

[carbon dioxide]

The Church's & Brethrens' teachings on homosexuality have not been consistent for decades.

 

No, I'm not the one who determines that a teaching or policy is wrong.

 

If you are aware of a revelation from the Lord explaining his will regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage, please let me know.  I'd love to read it.

 

In response to your CFR:  I said "similar statements"... we have letters from the FP regarding race-based doctrine that have now been publicly disavowed by the church.  The 1969 FP letter comes to mind as one example.

 

If you want to understand where I am coming from on this, please read this blog post:  https://medium.com/@ungewissen/missing-church-in-july-928e90931ee1

 

I didn't write it but I think it is a good summary of my thoughts and feelings on the subject.

The Church has changed the way it approaches the issue of homosexuality but one thing has never been in doubt--homosexual acts are always sinful.   This probably should be the case in everything that people do. The Church can change the way it approaches child abuse, drug addiction, and other things so it can help bring them to Christ.  Coming to Christ means being willing to give up ungodliness and repenting.  It does not mean finding creative ways to get around othe requirement of giving that stuff up. 

[mfbukowski]

Debacle. There is no point to discuss. You know, I find it interesting that at church, everyone always seems in agreement on where we stand as far as marriage and morality. The only dissent I hear comes from this board and others like it as if these places just attract all the dissenters.

I mentioned to my wife today something about women who want the Priesthood.

She said "Huh? What women want the Priesthood?"

[mfbukowski]

and what is the local leaders support it themselves?

Where the heck do you live?

If local leaders oppose the church, they should not be leaders.

[Duncan]

Where the heck do you live?

If local leaders oppose the church, they should not be leaders.

 

Canada, I know my Bishop two ones ago supported it and his wife, I doubt though they'd attend rallies or sign petitions and junk but he didn't see anything wrong with it, he has a gay uncle who surprise surprise came out of the closet and left the Church

[mfbukowski]

Oh come on! Apparently Canada isn't special enough to get this letter ten years ago, but has to wait for the United States to hurry up and damn their entire nation to Armageddon like ours.

Typical American Imperialism.

Oh THAT's the deal. The commies to the north again.

[mfbukowski]

I am jealous. We wished each other a happy Canada Day, but we aren't celebrating it at all.

OH- That's why you spell stuff weird!

[Duncan]

Oh THAT's the deal. The commies to the north again.

 

I don't care what Chuck told you we aren't commies, we just happen to be better at living then you  JUST KIDDING!!! maybe

Edited July 2, 2015 by Duncan

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the wards are being instructed to hold a special meeting because the Brethren want to make it crystal clear to everyone what the Church's position is with regard to homosexual behavior, that it is unacceptable, that it will never be acceptable, and that such teaching represents the mind and will of the Lord.

 

So long as we have members holding vain hopes and imaginings that the position of the Church in this regard will change, there will always be a need for clarity on this matter.

[Calm]

OH- That's why you spell stuff weird!

No, I either had a teacher in elementary school who taught me the English way of spelling for a few words or I picked it up quite young from reading. I am not consistent at all...autocorrect changes stuff a lot as well. I had a big fight with my grade eight English teacher over the word "colour". It was wonderful to finally live in a place where no one said anything no matter which way I wrote it.

[rockpond]

The Church has changed the way it approaches the issue of homosexuality but one thing has never been in doubt--homosexual acts are always sinful. This probably should be the case in everything that people do. The Church can change the way it approaches child abuse, drug addiction, and other things so it can help bring them to Christ. Coming to Christ means being willing to give up ungodliness and repenting. It does not mean finding creative ways to get around othe requirement of giving that stuff up.

Not just the way it approaches homosexuality but it's understanding of homosexuality. And if the Brethren's understanding of homosexuality is changing (not based on any cited revelation from God but because the world figured it out first) then for me, that doesn't reflect the will of the Lord.

[Buckeye]

I think the wards are being instructed to hold a special meeting because the Brethren want to make it crystal clear to everyone what the Church's position is with regard to homosexual behavior, that it is unacceptable, that it will never be acceptable, and that such teaching represents the mind and will of the Lord.

 

So long as we have members holding vain hopes and imaginings that the position of the Church in this regard will change, there will always be a need for clarity on this matter.

 

Then we better plan on having these meetings every week.

[stemelbow]

You are not reading this carefully.  The statement says that none of the explanations was the official position of the church.  Those explanations were never presented as official positions of the church.  And those explanations are not the same thing as the policy or doctrine.  Those explanations are just that- attempts at explaining the reasons for the Lord's will.  Big difference.

So the Church officially spelled out the doctrines in a 1949 letter signed by the First Presidency, but you say the explanations were never official positions of the Church? Ok. I suppose with that type of dialogue its no wonder you hold strongly to the position that we must follow the prophet no matter what. Just know, I disagree. I think it's clear the First Presidency of yesteryear is considered wrong today. No one, as I see it, agrees with the official position spelled out back then.

Additionally I truly believe there are other examples wherein today's 1st Presidency disagrees in an official capacity with those who once officially preached something else.

But I'll take it, as with the above example, you'd disagree. So peace.

[stemelbow]

The three-hour worship service is not an appropriate setting for open disagreement with the Church's teachings.

I know that's the attitude common today. I'd like to see that change. Afterall church is for, as a primary purpose, a place for us to get together to discuss the welfare of our souls. If we limit our scope of what we can talk about, we limit Church. I think that's clearly, where we are. We have limited Church so people feel pressure to keep in line so disagreers don't get upset.

[Buckeye]

So the Church officially spelled out the doctrines in a 1949 letter signed by the First Presidency, but you say the explanations were never official positions of the Church? Ok. I suppose with that type of dialogue its no wonder you hold strongly to the position that we must follow the prophet no matter what. Just know, I disagree. I think it's clear the First Presidency of yesteryear is considered wrong today. No one, as I see it, agrees with the official position spelled out back then.

Additionally I truly believe there are other examples wherein today's 1st Presidency disagrees in an official capacity with those who once officially preached something else.

But I'll take it, as with the above example, you'd disagree. So peace.

 

The 1949 FP letter said the justifications for the ban were "doctrine." The FP used the "d" word. There's no undoing that.

 

Some try to get around the issue by using today's definition of doctrine - i.e., statement affirmed by the full FP/Q12 - but that is moving the goalposts. In 1949, the FP alone thought it had the power to define doctrine. That's exactly what it was doing. If we're going to escape prior pronouncements by changing the rules for "doctrine," then members today should be free to expect that doctrines declared by the full FP/Q12 are not really doctrine. After all, in 25 years, "doctrine" may require approval of the FP/Q12/General RS/70. So everything said today by the FP/Q12 is not really doctrine.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then we better plan on having these meetings every week.

That shouldn't be necessary, but I guess we do whatever it takes.

 

By the way, the countdown clock continues to tick. In that arbitrary 40-year time frame there is precisely this much time left: 39 years, 7 months, 1 week,19 hours, and 25 minutes left.

 

Nearly half a year has gone by and, if anything, the Brethren seem more determined than ever not to let changing whims of society influence their teaching of righteousness and truth.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I know that's the attitude common today. I'd like to see that change. Afterall church is for, as a primary purpose, a place for us to get together to discuss the welfare of our souls. If we limit our scope of what we can talk about, we limit Church. I think that's clearly, where we are. We have limited Church so people feel pressure to keep in line so disagreers don't get upset.

Worship services are and ought to be a sanctuary where orthodox precepts are taught, discussed and applied. Heaven help us if they ever cease to be such a bastian of safety and spiritual edification. I will do all in my power to resist making our Church meetings a debating forum.

There is more than enough strife, tumult and challenging of the word of God in the outside world without it corrupting our worship services.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

The one glaring omission from the letter is any meaningful instruction on how to approach members who disagree with church. The final paragraph tries to address the issue, but only cites to the handbook section on proper channels for questions (ie, talk to your bishop; don't write the FP). There is nothing to help local leaders who preside over members who have prayed, read scriptures, etc. ... and yet still support SSM. My guess is that the FP/Q12 still haven't figured out exactly how to deal with this and so, until they do, local leaders will be left to their own judgment.

How is it a "glaring omission?" How many letters from the First Presidency have you seen accompanied by detailed instructions about how to deal with dissenters?

Faithful Latter-day Saints will sustain the brethren. Most of them will do so because they will accept, intuitively, that the brethren are right. A small minority may have to think about that point, but since the brethren are right, they'll come around. A very few will be confused about that point, but will sustain the brethren anyway, since that's what faithful Latter-day Saints do.

There may be a small number of open apostates who will kick against the pricks, and thus make themselves known.

There may also be some two-faced pretenders, but they'll make themselves known sooner or later, too.

[Russell C McGregor]

Rockpond's way:

You're right.  Absolutely.  Would you agree, however, that we need to create an atmosphere wherein dissent is welcomed and discussed in a productive way?  I don't think many wards are there yet.

The Lord's way:

Moses 7:

18 And the Lord called his people ZION, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.