On pressuring Church leaders to change doctrine

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Are you sure this is a "rather common mantra"?  If so, CFR.  Just one example would do. 

Occasionally critics will claim that in 1978 the writing was on the wall that universities that discriminate could loose their tax exempt status (as happened to Bob Jones University in 1983), and that this tax implication for BYU played a factor in this change, but I've never heard a critic claim that general "public pressure" caused the church to change on this issue.  The more common critical position on this issue is that Mormon leaders are generally old, uninspired, and behind the times.

Of course the 1890 change regarding polygamy is a different issue.... 

Your CFR and its answer to it are self-contained within your post. Presumed threats of loss of tax-exempt status would be an example of public pressure.

The point of my thread, however, is that according to President Kimball, who received the 1978 revelation, public pressure does not help and may, in fact, backfire.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You are talking about covenants..but what about devout LDS grandparents just wanting baby blessings for their grandchildren?

So you think a grand parent's wish to have a child blessed should prempt a parent's wish not to?

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Are you sure this is a "rather common mantra"?  If so, CFR.  Just one example would do. 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Social_pressure

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,533952,533952

http://mormonskeptic.blogspot.com/2008/06/revelations-in-lds-church.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_race.htm

https://C***.org/mormonism-and-the-negro

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why is it only parents are allowed to have choices and not church leaders in your ideal world?  Are they not human and valued members of society as well?

Everyone is valid.  But the church isn't raising the child.  On baby blessings.  Yes..they will go on record.  But now you have them on record..and missionaries aren't looking for new members..but for those who are members.  I know this doesn't make sense..but to me..this is one reason why the church has shot themselves in the foot.  They are declining potential members and yet sending out missionaries for converts..how does that make sense? 

Calm, a church, a people, can have valid input..but the parents and what they want to do..should trump all of that.  As a mother..though inactive, I saw that my kids were baptized and that my whole family participated.  It was what they wanted.  If I could go back now..it would be different.

t

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you think a grand parent's wish to have a child blessed should prempt a parent's wish not to?

No..that would never happen.  But I would think that they would do this for Mom and Dad.  I know I would.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Social_pressure

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,533952,533952

http://mormonskeptic.blogspot.com/2008/06/revelations-in-lds-church.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_race.htm

https://C***.org/mormonism-and-the-negro

Thanks, smac. I didn't have time for a paper chase today.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No..that would never happen.  But I would think that they would do this for Mom and Dad.  I know I would.

There is nothing stopping a father and mother from having a baby blessing in their home.  There are community implications in a naming blessing that places obligations on the church membership, obligations that can be in opposition to the family organization and thus the child's welfare at times, just as baptism might be I think we need to better teach what such a church blessing means and offer guidance on other options when it is inappropriate to happen as well as become more consistent in how this is done instead of having it the default mode in practically every case.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Calm

[Traela]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You are talking about covenants..but what about devout LDS grandparents just wanting baby blessings for their grandchildren?

The "name and a blessing" puts a child on the Church rolls.  Once that happens, other members of the ward, especially Primary teachers, the bishop, and home teachers have an obligation to steer the child toward baptism.  Not allowing the baby blessing sends a very clear signal to all that this is a special situation.

 

 

[consiglieri]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

More twisting of President Hinckley's meaning -- and absence of documentation to boot.

Why do you complain about absence of documentation when you know perfectly well to what I refer?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No..that would never happen.  But I would think that they would do this for Mom and Dad.  I know I would.

Would that all family relationships were so congenial. Alas, they are not, especially where there are those who, for whatever reason, do not like the Church of Jesus Christ.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Everyone is valid.  But the church isn't raising the child.  

You don't understand baptism if you think there is no intent to help raise a child by the Church.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Traela said:

The "name and a blessing" puts a child on the Church rolls.  Once that happens, other members of the ward, especially Primary teachers, the bishop, and home teachers have an obligation to steer the child toward baptism.  Not allowing the baby blessing sends a very clear signal to all that this is a special situation.

 

 

Isn't that what they signed up to do? 

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is nothing stopping a father and mother from having a baby blessing in their home.  There are community implications in a naming blessing that places obligations on the church membership, obligations that can be in opposition to the family organization and thus the child's welfare at times, just as baptism might be I think we need to better teach what such a church blessing means and offer guidance on other options when it is inappropriate to happen as well as become more consistent in how this is done instead of having it the default mode in practically every case.

That sounds wonderful..and a great alternative..but who wants to hide the grandchild ?  Anybody here want to hide their grandchild..can the congregation handle a child of gay parents? 

[Analytics]

 

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your CFR and its answer to it are self-contained within your post. Presumed threats of loss of tax-exempt status would be an example of public pressure.

Okay, thanks.  I'll note that your refutation about how the pressure was greater in the 1960's and had largely dissipated by 78 by doesn't fit this example very well--the IRS didn't make its decision regarding Bob Jones University until 1983.  This would indicate that this type of pressure to desegregate was still increasing 5 years earlier in 1978.

In any case, I'll just restate my opinion that most critics think this is an example of the Church lagging behind the times, not succumbing to public pressure.

[consiglieri]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't find that interprtation of his comment consistent with the context and his actual wording of the comment I am thinking of..  CFR please.

It is from the November 9, 1997 David Ransom interview:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/hinckley.shtml

 

 

DR: At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: That’s right, because the Lord has put it that way. Now women have a very prominent place in this Church. They have there own organization. Probably the largest women’s organization in the world of 3.7 million members. And the women of that organization sit on Boards. Our Board of Education things of that kind. They counsel with us. We counsel together. They bring in insight that we very much appreciate and they have this tremendous organization of the world where they grow and if you ask them they’ll say we’re happy and we’re satisfied.

DR: They all say that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. All except a oh you’ll find a little handful one or two here and there, but in 10 million members you expect that.

DR: You say the Lord has put it that way. What do you mean by that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I mean that’s a part of His programme. Of course it is, yes.

DR: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ?

Gordon B. Hinckley: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.

DR: So you’d have to get a revelation?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organization are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife.

[Calm]

Seriously, it really becomes difficult to want to continue the discussion when you twist what is being taught and ignore the essential part.

And if you think the primary purpose of a naming blessing is to show off the child, you are again mistaken.

If grandparents want to show off their family, they can hold an open house at home or even have a party at the ward building to do that.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Why do you complain about absence of documentation when you know perfectly well to what I refer?

Probably because there may be those who don't that assume your misinterpretation is accurate when reading the comment itself they would realize it's not.

[The Nehor]

59 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

President Hinckley intimated changes were not likely to come from above unless there was agitation from the membership.

How are the people at the top supposed to know there is an issue at the bottom unless they are told?

 

 

Prayer.

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Seriously, it really becomes difficult to want to continue the discussion when you twist what is being taught and ignore the essential part.

I'm afraid you will have to be more specific.

President Hinckley said a revelation would be needed to allow women the priesthood, "But there's no agitation for that.  We don't find it."

How am I twisting anything?

It is clear to me that in the absence of "agitation," there would be no need for Church leadership to seek a revelation.

If he didn't mean that, what could he possibly have meant?

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Isn't that what they signed up to do? 

Yet the child isn't supposed to be presented with the option of being baptized at eight and there are other community responsibilities towards the child and the family that are accepted by the Church membership when a child becomes a child of record which may conflict with the family's desires, practically guaranteed with a child being solely raised by same sex parents.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Everyone is valid.  But the church isn't raising the child. 

Correct.  But the Church is tasked with the administration of sacred ordinances.  It is within the mandate of the Church to administer them properly.

So to repeat the substance of the previous inquiry: Why can you not respect decisions made by the Brethren when those decisions are within their stewardship?

Do you presume to go around telling parents how they should raise their child?  Or would that be generally inappropriate since how someone else raises their child is generally not within your province?

If you are reluctant to be so presumptuous as to publicly tell others how you think they should perform their parenting responsibilities, or worse, publicly fault them in their parenting (I assume you would be reluctant to do so), why wouldn't you likewise be reluctant to refrain from putting your oar in when it comes to the Brethren fulfilling their responsibilities as the Lord's anointed (particularly since we are under covenant to sustain then and not speak evil of them)?

Quote

On baby blessings.  Yes..they will go on record.  But now you have them on record..and missionaries aren't looking for new members..but for those who are members.  I know this doesn't make sense..but to me..this is one reason why the church has shot themselves in the foot.  They are declining potential members and yet sending out missionaries for converts..how does that make sense? 

Well, it can make sense in one of two ways:

• Option 1: The Brethren are acting in accordance with the mind and will of God, which mind and will is not readily understood by the public at large.  This would explain why such a missionary-minded organization as the LDS Church would take such a seemingly unpopular and golly-this-may-hinder-our-missionary-effort-to-some-extent-but-the-world-is-changing-and-the-Lord-has-spoken-so-we-need-to-fulfill-our-responsibilities-as-prophets-and-apostles-and-declare-the-Lord's-will-notwithstanding-the-hurt-feelings-it-may-cause position on this issue.
• Option 2: The Brethren are hateful, spitemongering, lying bigots who feign concern for homosexuals but in reality hate them so much that they will take measures designed to harm and shun and "abuse" (Consig's preferred accusation) and ostracize (Zak's preferred accusation) small children, even if doing so harm's the Church's missionary and conversion efforts.

There are people on this board who have chosen Option 2.  I prefer Option 1.

Quote

Calm, a church, a people, can have valid input..but the parents and what they want to do..should trump all of that.  

With respect, I disagree with you to the extent you are referring to the administration of sacred priesthood ordinances.  It is not the province of parents to "trump" the sound and spiritually-informed decisions of the Lord's anointed when it comes to establishing policies and guidelines as to how such ordinances are handled.

I know a fellow, a bishop, who had an older member of his ward (we'll call him "Jack") call him and ask that he be ordained a high priest.  Jack asked that this be done immediately.  Like in the next few days.  The bishop asked why, and Jack responded that one of his sons was going to be ordained a high priest the next week, and that he (the son) had asked if Jack could perform the ordinance.  The bishop then asked Jack if he was prepared to be ordained a High Priest (the standards are essentially identical to the Temple Recommend questions).  Both Jack and the bishop knew that Jack was not ready at the time, but Jack nevertheless asked to be ordained.

This is not a perfect analogue, but what would you have done in this bishop's place?  Would you have disregarded the Church's policies and guidelines for priesthood ordination?  Should Jack's sincere and good (though perhaps still needing some improvement) desire for ordination - something which would seemingly fit within what the Church generally wants to have happen (men getting ordained to the priesthood) - "trump all of that?"  

Likewise, should personal preferences "trump" what ordained prophets and apostles have collectively determined (by revelation, after much prayer and discussion and fasting and temple attendance)?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 14, 2016 by smac97

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is a rather common mantra these days among critics of the Church of Jesus Christ that the Church leaders succumbed to public pressure in lifting the priesthood restriction in 1978. They say this despite the fact that the pressure and criticism, though strong in the late '60s and early '70s had largely subsided by 1978.

The reasoning goes that if outside public pressure could effect a change in the Church on this issue, there is hope (so they say) of changing the minds of Church leaders relative to declaring the sin of homosexual behavior to be not a sin and even something to be solemnized in the temples of the Lord.

Now comes a new FairMormon blog post by Gregory Smith quoting Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet who eventually received the revelation to lift the priesthood ban, clearly expressing his contempt for pressure tactics  -- such as the militant protests that were going on at the time -- being brought to bear on leaders of the Church. It should be borne in mind that Elder Kimball's remarks were in defense of President David O. McKay who, at the time, was president of the Church.

The quotations are drawn from the biography of Spencer W. Kimball written by his son, Edward, -- the second of the two biographies he wrote, this one covering President Kimball's years as Church president. They are actually in the CD-ROM that was included with the book. I have a copy on my shelf at home, but have never explored the content of the disc. I must do so now.

Here is an excerpt from Greg Smith's blog post:
 

 

I'm more about talking about ideas.  If one is free to speak his/her mind openly without repercussion then we're better off in the long run.  If people are told they are faithless or critics because they disagree with a certain proposition made by another, we're worse off.  If I were alive in 1970 and spoke openly about disagreeing with the Church's policy and doctrine concern black people, I possibly would have been disciplined.  But in the end, what did that matter if it was a good thing for the Church to change?  maybe if the policy and doctrine were changed in 1920 we wouldn't still be suffering the consequences of the later change in 1978.  But it stuck with the Church a long time and thus we have to deal with the problems that the policy/doctrine caused.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Isn't that what they signed up to do? 

Didn't you just say the Church wasn't raising the child?

[Jeanne]

I just have this to say and then I will refrain from this thread further.  But I would like to let Smac and Calm know..though I highly respect your positions and convictions on all of this, that I, as a mother, and grandmother of my deceased sister's grandkids, that I am ever so grateful for my children.  Inspite of losing a father in their teens, they have been the best examples of courage and undefeated strength to their friends, family, and to Mom.  They have directed their lives to helping others..and their constant concern for me is the biggest blessing my husband gave me.  They were not raised in the church as others were.  That being said, I did or would not ever let 15 men take away their agency, their conscience and integrity.  I am most grateful for that.  I  did not let the church raise my children..so they are free to love others non inclusively with love and service the Savior taught.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

That sounds wonderful..and a great alternative..but who wants to hide the grandchild ?  Anybody here want to hide their grandchild..can the congregation handle a child of gay parents? 

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the point and purpose of the priesthood ordinance.  It's not the Mormon equivalent of a "quinceanera" for babies.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 13, 2016 by smac97