Two New Ensign Articles Affirming Marriage Between A Man And A Woman

[Scott Lloyd]

and we know that, I think the church needs to clarify other important issues

 

 

I can't make sense of this.

[Scott Lloyd]

I thought I was keeping it focused... since you started the thread by commenting on my assertion.

 

I agree that the Church has not backed down on its position regarding marriage.  But several decades is a long time and my point is that if a revelation changing our position on gay marriage is going to be received, some of these smaller steps are going to need to happen.

 

As I've stated before, I don't expect our leaders to stop teaching man-woman marriage anytime soon.  In fact, teachings on this subject will intensify as more and more members cease to believe them.

Whether or not something is sinful has never been subject to referendum.

[ALarson]

It's called reading for comprehension -- or accepting the reality that we can't know the context of an interview that took place 50 years ago to which only President Tanner and the writer were privy.

 

Do you deny that the context in which a statement was made can make a great deal of difference in its meaning?

 

I have suggested a plausible interpretation of the quoted statement in light of known facts (i.e. that God, through revelation, changed the practice in the Church, a development that was not unexpected).

 

If you've never had the experience of being quoted out of context before, you are indeed fortunate -- but perhaps the disadvantage is you don't seem to grasp the importance of context.

Oh, of course I understand context.  But what I stated is absolutely true as it relates to statements given today that may also be "qualified" or  read for "comprehension" 50 years from now.  That's what my point was.

Edited September 1, 2015 by ALarson

[KevinG]

It's a reminder of where we were and how far we've come.

 

Thanks.  I was worried it was a dig.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't expect the church will ever accept SSM in the temple. They are very clear and there is sustantial history and teaching that support their current position about that. I accept that this could change like the priesthood and temple ban, which also had significant history and teaching AND scriptur to support it, but I don't expect it.

 

However, I do expect the church will ease up significantly on non-temple SSM. At some point they will realize that they cannot enforce church ideology of marriage on the entire world. This would be a minor move. It would merely require them to change their acceptance of a word (marriage) since they already support SS unions for legal rights.

 

I hope that some day the church will find ways to be inclusive of SS couples and families within the church. This would require them to have 1 uniform law of chastity, no relations outside of legal marriage, instead of 2 separate expectations they claim are the same. The problem is, if they define the law of chastity as it currently is stated in the temple (spouse legally and lawfully married) then it will put pressure on them to accept SSM in the temple.

 

But to accept SSM in the temple the church would need to change it's vague understanding that spirit children are procreated the same way physical children are. New understanding about how spirit children are created/organized would be needed, OR at least a definitive acceptance that we don't know how spirit children are created.

In other words, you want the Church of Jesus Christ to redefine fundamental doctrine to accommodate your political views.

 

Not going to happen.

[Calm]

It's a reminder of where we were and how far we've come.

It should contain how far we've come as well then...maybe edit it some because it is huge and that is a bit annoying. As is, it comes across as more rubbing one's nose in the past than indicating how far we've come, imo.

[rockpond]

Whether or not something is sinful has never been subject to referendum.

 

I completely agree.

[ALarson]

In other words, you want the Church of Jesus Christ to redefine fundamental doctrine to accommodate your political views.

 

Not going to happen.

Sounds familiar.

 

Again, from N. Eldon Tanner:

 "The church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There’s really nothing we can do to change this. It’s a law of God." 

[rockpond]

It should contain how far we've come as well then...maybe edit it some because it is huge and that is a bit annoying. As is, it comes across as more rubbing one's nose in the past than indicating how far we've come, imo.

I actually tried shortening it but I didn't want to be accused of changing its meaning.  I'll see what I can do to improve on it.

 

I think it's important that we not forget the past.  We shouldn't forget that the thoughts in that quote were once firmly taught as church doctrine lest we believe that teachings today (as firm as they may seem) could also change and be disavowed.  We're already seeing participants on these threads that seem to think the church always supported LGBT rights... even though that was a relatively recent change.

[rockpond]

It should contain how far we've come as well then...maybe edit it some because it is huge and that is a bit annoying. As is, it comes across as more rubbing one's nose in the past than indicating how far we've come, imo.

 

I shortened it and added a comment to clarify.

[Scott Lloyd]

I actually tried shortening it but I didn't want to be accused of changing its meaning.  I'll see what I can do to improve on it.

 

I think it's important that we not forget the past.  We shouldn't forget that the thoughts in that quote were once firmly taught as church doctrine lest we believe that teachings today (as firm as they may seem) could also change and be disavowed.  We're already seeing participants on these threads that seem to think the church always supported LGBT rights... even though that was a relatively recent change.

The only thing that can be definitively drawn from your quote is that Elder McConkie at one time held to those thoughts. Whether they were once "firmly taught as Church doctrine" is open to question.

 

I have a membership in the Church that stretches back now well over a half-century, and I don't recall anything being definitively or "firmly" taught with regard to the reason for or origin of the restriction on the priesthood.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sounds familiar.

 

Again, from N. Eldon Tanner:

 "The church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There’s really nothing we can do to change this. It’s a law of God." 

The concept that the Church leaders cannot change doctrine to appeal to political views is, in fact, quite consistent. I don't deny that.

 

But it has no bearing on whether or not something can be viewed as a live or viable possibility.

[rockpond]

The only thing that can be definitively drawn from your quote is that Elder McConkie at one time held to those thoughts. Whether they were once "firmly taught as Church doctrine" is open to question.

 

I have a membership in the Church that stretches back now well over a half-century, and I don't recall anything being definitively or "firmly" taught with regard to the reason for or origin of the restriction on the priesthood.

 

I picked that quote because it (fairly) succinctly captures ideas that were taught as doctrine over many decades.  You know that they were... do I really need to do a data dump of all the quotes?

 

Your half-century church membership lies mostly within the post-OD2 timeframe so I wouldn't expect you to personally recall these teachings coming from the pulpit.

[Scott Lloyd]

I picked that quote because it (fairly) succinctly captures ideas that were taught as doctrine over many decades.  You know that they were... do I really need to do a data dump of all the quotes?

 

Your half-century church membership lies mostly within the post-OD2 timeframe so I wouldn't expect you to personally recall these teachings coming from the pulpit.

I was nearly 24 when the revelation on the priesthood was announced, two years home from my mission, not far from college graduation. I clearly remember the times before that, and I'm telling you that when the doctrine on blacks and the priesthood was discussed in Church meetings at all, (which was seldom), there was nothing I remember about "caste systems" and pre-mortal or post-mortal segregation. Those ideas are foreign to my experience and my memory, and I have been active in the Church since infancy. Moreover, because of interest in current affairs, stemming from my chlldhood, particularly as they related to the Church, I was very much aware of the discourse on this and other issues.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I was nearly 24 when the revelation on the priesthood was announced, two years home from my mission, not far from college graduation. I clearly remember the times before that, and I'm telling you that when the doctrine on blacks and the priesthood was discussed in Church meeting at all, (which was seldom), there was nothing I remember about "caste systems" and pre-mortal or post-mortal segregation. Those ideas are foreign to my experience and my memory, and I have been active in the Church since infancy. Moreover, because of interest in current affairs, stemming from my chlldhood, particularly as they related to the Church, I was very much aware of the discourse on this and other issues.

 

I agree that I didn't really hear the "caste system" idea... just the principle behind it.  And I can tell you that, while I was in primary when the priesthood revelation was announced, I grew up being taught that blacks had been denied the priesthood because they were less valiant in the preexistence.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree that I didn't really hear the "caste system" idea... just the principle behind it.  And I can tell you that, while I was in primary when the priesthood revelation was announced, I grew up being taught that blacks had been denied the priesthood because they were less valiant in the preexistence.

That idea had been widely discredited in the Church by the time I reached young adulthood -- which apparently pre-dates the period in which you said you "grew up being taught" this thing.

[ALarson]

That idea had been widely discredited in the Church by the time I reached young adulthood -- which apparently pre-dates the period in which you said you "grew up being taught" this thing.

Do you have any sources for that?  Are there statements from church leaders prior to when the ban was lifted discrediting these teachings?

[rockpond]

That idea had been widely discredited in the Church by the time I reached young adulthood -- which apparently pre-dates the period in which you said you "grew up being taught" this thing.

 

Apparently, it wasn't "wide" enough to make it to my area or most of the people I was taught by (including parents, bishop, etc).  Nor did it seem to make it to Randy Bott, a BYU religion professor.

Edited September 1, 2015 by rockpond

[rockpond]

I was nearly 24 when the revelation on the priesthood was announced, two years home from my mission, not far from college graduation. I clearly remember the times before that, and I'm telling you that when the doctrine on blacks and the priesthood was discussed in Church meetings at all, (which was seldom), there was nothing I remember about "caste systems" and pre-mortal or post-mortal segregation. Those ideas are foreign to my experience and my memory, and I have been active in the Church since infancy. Moreover, because of interest in current affairs, stemming from my chlldhood, particularly as they related to the Church, I was very much aware of the discourse on this and other issues.

 

So you were a Deacon when this letter came out:  http://www.blacklds.org/1969-first-presidency-statement

[KevinG]

I just searched General Conference talks (from 1971 on) and found only one reference to caste by Elder Nelson.  It had nothing to do with blacks and priesthood, and was a warning against creating castes based on national origin or lineage.

 

I also looked up "less valiant".  While there were several warnings against being less valiant in our covenants and callings, there were no references to race, or pre-mortal life.

[KevinG]

So you were a Deacon when this letter came out:  http://www.blacklds.org/1969-first-presidency-statement

 

"Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.” referred to the Gospel plan not just the priesthood ban.

[Scott Lloyd]

Apparently, it wasn't "wide" enough to make it to my area or most of the people I was taught by (including parents, bishop, etc).  Nor did it seem to make it to Randy Bott, a BYU religion professor.

Sometimes it takes a while for the water to get to the end of the row.

 

I don't remember precisely what Bott was quoted as saying, but it seems to me there wasn't anything in his remarks about "caste systems" or lack of valiance in the pre-moratal existence.

[Scott Lloyd]

So you were a Deacon when this letter came out:  http://www.blacklds.org/1969-first-presidency-statement

In 1969, I would have been a teacher -- almost a priest -- in the Aaronic Priesthood.

 

There is nothing in that letter about "caste systems" or about lack of valiance in the pre-mortal existence. Only that God has His reasons, which He has not made fully known to man.

 

That's pretty much where things stand today. There has been no disavowal of the pre-1978 restriction.

 

The letter you cite does not sustain what you claim you were "taught while growing up."

 

Nor does it establish that "caste systems" and pre-mortal "lack of valiance" were once "firmly taught in the Church."

Edited September 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

"Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.” referred to the Gospel plan not just the priesthood ban.

 

The reason the leaders issued this statement is clearly expressed:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

 

 

And, here is the entire quote:

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

Edited September 1, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

Apparently, it wasn't "wide" enough to make it to my area or most of the people I was taught by (including parents, bishop, etc).  Nor did it seem to make it to Randy Bott, a BYU religion professor.

I didn't see these teachings disavowed until after the Randy Bott interview.  But if there are statements from the leaders, I would love to see them.

Edited September 1, 2015 by ALarson