consiglieri Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: So remind me when it was that that the public protests, nasty public vilification of Church leaders and threats of mass apostasy occurred over the style of temple garments and content of the temple ceremony. You keep changing the argument, Scott. We are talking about pressure or agitation from the bottom to the top having an obvious influence on the decisions of Church leaders. This much is indisputable. When you go over the top in describing the actions, you change the argument entirely. And of course, you can win the argument in the terms you have over-described it. That is why it is called a straw man argument. 1
Zakuska Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Accepted by whom? You link to an abbreviated, simiplified elementary school account and label it as "accepted history"? You're going to ignore what Russell pointed out then? Heavy-handed oppression by the federal government leading inexorably to the destruction of the Church. I agree with Russell. It is extremely simplistic to assert that plural marriage was ended as a trade-off for receiving statehood. The threat of disenfranchisment of the church due to polygamy was largely resolved and leaders practicing it where aloud to remain with their families. If polygamy was not adandond and laws prohibiting it written into state constitution, Utah would have never became a state. Republican party preasure forced the church to abandon it. That's an undisputable historical fact. It's also a doctrinal fact that God changes his commandments for his church due to outside preasures. D&C 124 Edited January 14, 2016 by Zakuska
consiglieri Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 16 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: If you had a clue, you'd know that priesthood is an ecclesiastical construct, and that a university is not a church. This is a distinction without a difference. If BYU were in peril of losing its tax exempt status over a Church policy, do you think it impossible the Church policy might change in order to avoid the peril?
consiglieri Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 14 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Yes, that's what people tell me. Funny how things are considered doctrine under the prophets that keep them and not doctrine under the prophets that change them. Every doctrine is only doctrine until someone decides it isn't. Just like the 1949 First Presidency Statement that black men being forbidden the priesthood was doctrine.
6EQUJ5 Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 24 minutes ago, consiglieri said: You are aware the Church sponsored a far-reaching poll among its members regarding their thoughts about the temple ceremony prior to instituting the changes in 1990? I am aware. But this says nothing about revelation on the subject. Were they not inspired in how they wrote the poll questions? Do we know if they hadn't received revelation previously and the poll was merely a way to prepare membership for the change? 1
Thinking Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 35 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Nope. Someone else who doesn't actually read his own sources. 33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Accepted by whom? You link to an abbreviated, simplified elementary school account and label it as "accepted history"? You're going to ignore what Russell pointed out then? Heavy-handed oppression by the federal government leading inexorably to the destruction of the Church. I agree with Russell. It is extremely simplistic to assert that plural marriage was ended as a trade-off for receiving statehood. That abbreviated simplified account is on the utah.gov website. You know the old saying about the simplest answer...
JLHPROF Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 36 minutes ago, consiglieri said: You are aware the Church sponsored a far-reaching poll among its members regarding their thoughts about the temple ceremony prior to instituting the changes in 1990? Ordinance design by member. Scary thought. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: I don't believe that for a second. Look at what the Lord taught us about Revelation imn D&C 6, 8, and 9. Look at what Joseph taught about recognizing the Holy Ghost. It's the same process it has always been. I agree with that. But on the spectrum of revelation from the most subtle (little promptings, peaceful feelings) to the most direct (messengers visiting in person) our expectation of what we call revelation has shifted towards the subtle. And while most members think that makes no difference, I think it allows more room for error. There has been a shift. If Pres. Monson ever issued a written thus saith the Lord style revelation I think half the membership would drop their jaws. The revelations received in the 19th century generally came as specific words of the Lord. The revelations received in the past 50 years or so now come as feelings of confirmation. Both are valid. One is less subject to interpretation. Edited January 14, 2016 by JLHPROF 1
Tacenda Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Ordinance design by member. Scary thought. But happened none the less. Maybe the temple is just for the goer. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 Just now, Tacenda said: But happened none the less. Maybe the temple is just for the goer. Sabbath is made for man? Sure. But the nature of the Sabbath is still eternal. Even God observed it.
Storm Rider Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 Consig, do you have a reference for the 1990 poll by the Church on the temple ceremony? I had never heard that and would like to read about it. Thanks.
Jeanne Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 On 1/13/2016 at 0:36 PM, Calm said: 12 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Consig, do you have a reference for the 1990 poll by the Church on the temple ceremony? I had never heard that and would like to read about it. Thanks. Didn't you just say the Church wasn't raising the child? Me neither..would love to see that. Thanks!
Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2016 Author Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: You keep changing the argument, Scott. We are talking about pressure or agitation from the bottom to the top having an obvious influence on the decisions of Church leaders. This much is indisputable. When you go over the top in describing the actions, you change the argument entirely. And of course, you can win the argument in the terms you have over-described it. That is why it is called a straw man argument. I'm the originator of this thread. A look at the OP should make the original context clear. I had in mind hostile, unwelcome pressure tactics and agitation such as protests, online social media campaigns and the like. What I didn't have in mind were responses gathered from surveys that the Church iteself had initiated, or well-placed suggestions made through councils and other established channels, or the Church taking notice of and adapting for Church-wide use local-unit initiatives (such as Sunday School), etc. I've not changed the argument from what it was when I began this thread. It is you and others who have been endeavoring to do that by bringing in irrelevancies. Edited January 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2016 Author Posted January 14, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: This is a distinction without a difference. If BYU were in peril of losing its tax exempt status over a Church policy, do you think it impossible the Church policy might change in order to avoid the peril? What peril? Didn't Analytics say here that the Bob Jones case had not even been settled until after 1978?
Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2016 Author Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Thinking said: That abbreviated simplified account is on the utah.gov website. I know what the website is. The content is obviously an elementary-level primer that doesn't even scratch the surface of the dynamics of the situation, including government oppression and threatened annihilation of the Church of Jesus Christ. Quote You know the old saying about the simplest answer... I don't know what "old saying" you have in mind, but I do know that simplistic, un-nuanced accounts of complex historical events can hinder an accurate understanding more than they help it. But I suppose when the utah.gov website speaks, the thinking has been done. Edited January 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Bob Crockett Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: We are talking about pressure or agitation from the bottom to the top having an obvious influence on the decisions of Church leaders. This much is indisputable. Matthew 18:18-19 teaches that church doctrine and action is determined by the apostles. "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you should agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." It should not be a surprise to any member of the Church that almost all of what the Church does is have the FP and Q12 deliberate and pray about a course of conduct. If they agree, "in my name," it is done. I can see how that worked with John Talyor. Evidently he had in his files after his death (but the handwriting was suspect, so who knows for sure) a draft revelation making the practice of plural marriage an immutable principle required for salvation. But it was never presented to the Q12. Seems to me that Biblical model was working appropriately. I would also presume to say that they bring a lot of information with them -- committees, polls and even complaints -- before they deliberate. Is that so shocking? Or are you still adhering to the canard that if you put your nickel in the fortune telling machine, out pops a prophecy. Has it really ever worked that way? The D&C sections usually are revelations to Joseph Smith after he asked for something, again, a bottom up inquiry. 2
Avatar4321 Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: Just like the 1949 First Presidency Statement that black men being forbidden the priesthood was doctrine. they were forbidden priesthood. Unless you are suggesting the ban was a hoax
JLHPROF Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm the originator of this thread. A look at the OP should make the original context clear. I had in mind hostile, unwelcome pressure tactics and agitation such as protests, online social media campaigns and the like. What I didn't have in mind were responses gathered from surveys that the Church iteself had initiated, or well-placed suggestions made through established channels, or the Church taking notice of and adapting for Church-wide use local-unit initiatives (such as Sunday School), etc. I've not changed the argument from what it was when I began this thread. It is you and others who have been endeavoring to do that by bringing in irrelevancies. Well I apologize if you feel I derailed your thread. I agree that the Church never has changed doctrinal items due to protests, media campaigns and the like. But do members influence doctrinal change? Yes. They do. Sometimes they prompt prayer for new revelation. The Church HAS changed doctrinal items due to member input, and somewhat due to member complaints (ie, the garments/elements of the endowment). Even the Lord takes our feelings into consideration and revokes laws (and the blessings attached) if we are unwilling to live them.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2016 Author Posted January 14, 2016 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Well I apologize if you feel I derailed your thread. I agree that the Church never has changed doctrinal items due to protests, media campaigns and the like. But do members influence doctrinal change? Yes. They do. Sometimes they prompt prayer for new revelation. The Church HAS changed doctrinal items due to member input, and somewhat due to member complaints (ie, the garments/elements of the endowment). Even the Lord takes our feelings into consideration and revokes laws (and the blessings attached) if we are unwilling to live them. Apology accepted, but I think I've defined my terms clearly enough, such that I draw a clear distinction between "member input" and unwelcome pressure tactics. If you haven't done so yet, I invite you to read the Greg Smith blog post I linked to in the OP in which Spencer W. Kimball is quoted as decrying in no uncertain terms the latter.
Russell C McGregor Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: This is a distinction without a difference. If BYU were in peril of losing its tax exempt status over a Church policy, do you think it impossible the Church policy might change in order to avoid the peril? In no plausible law state would an eleemosynary institution lose its tax exempt status because its sponsoring institution had ecclesiastical policies that were socially unpopular. The notion that this could happen is a spiteful fantasy. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Thinking said: That abbreviated simplified account is on the utah.gov website. You know the old saying about the simplest answer... Which old saying? That it's dumbed down for the simplest minds? 1
JLHPROF Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: Consig, do you have a reference for the 1990 poll by the Church on the temple ceremony? I had never heard that and would like to read about it. Thanks. It is available online if you google it (Scribd has an almost complete one). But obviously I can't link here to anything with temple content. It is also on some anti-sites which would also be unacceptable linking. Personally, I think it wasn't specific to any of the changes made and was specific to members comfort level and happiness with the overall temple experience and frequency of return. I would think the level of discomfort reported is what led to brethren to decide which changes should be made. That is certainly what was described by leaders in President Grants day concerning the garment.
JLHPROF Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Apology accepted, but I think I've defined my terms clearly enough, such that I draw a clear distinction between "member input" and unwelcome pressure tactics. If you haven't done so yet, I invite you to read the Greg Smith blog post I linked to in the OP in which Spencer W. Kimball is quoted as decrying in no uncertain terms the latter. I did. And I agree concerning the latter. Your thread title "On pressuring Church leaders to change doctrine" opens the door to the former.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2016 Author Posted January 14, 2016 5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I did. And I agree concerning the latter. Your thread title "On pressuring Church leaders to change doctrine" opens the door to the former. One ought to take one's cue from an opening post, not just a thread title. In any case regarding survey responses as "pressuring" strikes me as quite a stretch.
Recommended Posts