On pressuring Church leaders to change doctrine

[Bob Crockett]

16 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

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.

You'd think.  But that is not what happened in the Bob Jones case.  The university prohibited interracial dating, and the Supreme Court upheld the revocation of tax status.  

The reason you are incorrect is that in the United States, tax exemption policies are not necessarily constrained by the First Amendment.   Revocation of tax status would not have barred the university from continuing on with its policy.

It is thus conceivable that BYU might some day lose its tax exempt status over the gay issue for the very same reason in the Bob Jones case.  But that wouldn't necessary force BYU to change. 

But, then again, I oppose as a libertarian all tax exemptions, as I oppose most taxes.  In the case of religion, there is no way charitable contributions should ever be taxed, but if the religion makes money off those contributions it should pay taxes to the extent they exist.  The best way to resolve this is to impose a tax solely upon individuals' incomes.  Thus, religions and charities and corporations would not be taxed.   

Edited January 14, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Thinking]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

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.

Simple does not mean inaccurate.

You can't deny that polygamy was a significant part of the complexity of the conflict between the U.S. government and the territory of Utah.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Thinking

[consiglieri]

46 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

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.  

But Section 89 was given in response to a question from Emma.

Check-mate.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It's interesting that when two posters make a claim and it's refuted with a reference from the Utah government that that those

You haven't refuted a thing. All you've done is to repeat, in effect, that when Utah.gov speaks -- even if it is nothing more than a page in an elementary-level primer -- the thinking has been done. That's not refutation.

Quote

Simple does not mean inaccurate.

Sometimes it does. As when it is implied that desire for statehood was the only reason for the discontinuance of the practice of plural marriage.

Quote

You can't deny that polygamy was a significant part of the complexity of the conflict between the U.S. government and the territory of Utah.

Where have I made that denial? Polygamy was the reason the government was going to disenfranchise the Church, confiscate its property and effectively destroy it as an organization. All of this goes far beyond a mere quest for statehood for Utah.

[Russell C McGregor]

24 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

You'd think.  But that is not what happened in the Bob Jones case.  The university prohibited interracial dating, and the Supreme Court upheld the revocation of tax status.  

The reason you are incorrect is that in the United States, tax exemption policies are not necessarily constrained by the First Amendment.   Revocation of tax status would not have barred the university from continuing on with its policy.

It is thus conceivable that BYU might some day lose its tax exempt status over the gay issue for the very same reason in the Bob Jones case.  But that wouldn't necessary force BYU to change. 

But, then again, I oppose as a libertarian all tax exemptions, as I oppose most taxes.  In the case of religion, there is no way charitable contributions should ever be taxed, but if the religion makes money off those contributions it should pay taxes to the extent they exist.  The best way to resolve this is to impose a tax solely upon individuals' incomes.  Thus, religions and charities and corporations would not be taxed.   

Yes, but there's a clear distinction between the two cases. Bob Jones had its own policy regarding interracial dating. BYU had no policy regarding Priesthood ordination and had no say regarding who was ordained or when.

The two things are not like each other.

But it's clearly not only tax exemption policies that are not constrained by the First Amendment. Said amendment didn't seem to have much traction in Reynolds, or indeed in any of the anti-polygamy cases in the late 19th century.

Which cases, we are now told, were merely a convenient cover for Utah's campaign to gain statehood.

 

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Calling the ban a non-issue in 1978 is a rewriting of history to make it fit a certain paradigm.

Something I think Nevo just demonstrated with his quote.

There is no rewriting of history. In Nevo's own response to my comments he validates what I, Scott Lloyd and most of the rank and file of the church experienced in the first seven years of the 1970's. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 0:10 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

It has long been the policy of the Church not to baptize children without the consent of their parents. Where is your outrage about this practice if you are so concerned about children being excluded?

 

Parents and legal guardians have a legal right to make decisions for the benefit of their children. If the church did not have the policy requiring parental consent they could be legally held responsible for acting against the will of the parents. This is not the same thing. In these cases the parent wants the child to be baptized but the church is refusing to allow it. It's offensive.

In the recent HW Hunter manual he is describes how he slumped in his seat in shame when his peers were able to pass the sacrament but he couldn't because he didn't hold the priesthood because he hadn't been baptized. It was a negative and a traumatizing experience for him. His father made this choice for him and it caused him to hurt.

In the case of the policy the church is making the blanket decision not to allow any child in this circumstance to be baptized. It is sad that the church is making this choice for them and causing them to hurt.

[Zakuska]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You haven't refuted a thing. All you've done is to repeat, in effect, that when Utah.gov speaks -- even if it is nothing more than a page in an elementary-level primer -- the thinking has been done. That's not refutation.

Sometimes it does. As when it is implied that desire for statehood was the only reason for the discontinuance of the practice of plural marriage.

Where have I made that denial? Polygamy was the reason the government was going to disenfranchise the Church, confiscate its property and effectively destroy it as an organization. All of this goes far beyond a mere quest for statehood for Utah.

Polygamy is what caused the government to start disenfranchisment of the church in the first place. It was the root cause and it's iradication was the root remedy. So it's not in the least bit inaccurate to state the church traded polygamy for statehood.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Parents and legal guardians have a legal right to make decisions for the benefit of their children. If the church did not have the policy requiring parental consent they could be legally held responsible for acting against the will of the parents. This is not the same thing. In these cases the parent wants the child to be baptized but the church is refusing to allow it. It's offensive.

In the recent HW Hunter manual he is describes how he slumped in his seat in shame when his peers were able to pass the sacrament but he couldn't because he didn't hold the priesthood because he hadn't been baptized. It was a negative and a traumatizing experience for him. His father made this choice for him and it caused him to hurt.

In the case of the policy the church is making the blanket decision not to allow any child in this circumstance to be baptized. It is sad that the church is making this choice for them and causing them to hurt.

But what if that pain is what made him a good prophet? Are you trying to deny apostleship to the children of gays?

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours 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 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.

Those being pressured rarely like it but that doesn't mean pressure doesn't work.

There may not have been organized campaigns but feedback from the grassroots absolutely influences the church. Temple garments, length of temple ceremonies, unease with the penalties and symbolism, unease with the modesty of shields etc, unhappiness about the race ban, unhappiness about the TR question about oral S. etc. etc.

There are many examples about how both solicited and unsolicited feedback has caused the church to evaluate. This is expected. It's not a weakness but actually a strength when an organization can adjust to meet the needs of its members. None of these changes occurs in a vacuum so it's impossible to say XYZ cause the change to ABC but it is likewise impossible to claim that XYZ had no bearing on the change to ABC simply because someone didn't appreciate the pressure.

[Russell C McGregor]

17 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Polygamy is what caused the government to start disenfranchisment of the church in the first place. It was the root cause and it's iradication was the root remedy. So it's not in the least bit inaccurate to state the church traded polygamy for statehood.

The bolded phrase is an unusual way to spell "completely false."

The Church "traded" polygamy for institutional survival, not statehood.

As President Woodruff pointed out: seizing the temples and locking up the husbands and fathers effectively stopped the practice anyway.

To say that some event E happened after, or even as a partial consequence, of some decision D is not the same as saying that D was made to bring about E.

Is that really too hard to understand?

 

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Polygamy was the reason the government was going to disenfranchise the Church, confiscate its property and effectively destroy it as an organization. All of this goes far beyond a mere quest for statehood for Utah.

In other words, polygamy was at the center of the the entire conflict. Thank you for making my point, my simple point.

[Russell C McGregor]

 

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

In other words, polygamy was at the center of the the entire conflict. Thank you for making my point, my simple point.

Really?

Because in this post:

14 hours ago, Thinking said:

And standard accepted history.

 

you seemed to be arguing that the Church abandoned polygamy to secure statehood for Utah, a rather different "simple point."

 

 

[Zakuska]

12 minutes ago, Thinking said:

In other words, polygamy was at the center of the the entire conflict. Thank you for making my point, my simple point.

And more to the point... doctrine was changed (due to outside political preasure) when we abandoned it.

It used to be doctrine that only polygamist could attain the Celestial kingdom. 

[Thinking]

32 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Really?

Because in this post:

you seemed to be arguing that the Church abandoned polygamy to secure statehood for Utah, a rather different "simple point."

If polygamy was at the center of the entire conflict (which included Utah's desire for statehood), then it really isn't a different simple point.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You haven't refuted a thing. All you've done is to repeat, in effect, that when Utah.gov speaks -- even if it is nothing more than a page in an elementary-level primer -- the thinking has been done.

This is a strange thing to hear from a guy who believes that when the leaders of the Church speak, the thinking has been done.

 

As I have said before, the LDS Church is a culture that cares more about who says something than what is said.

Truth is not measured by its own content but by who says it.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

10 minutes ago, Thinking said:

If polygamy was at the center of the entire conflict (which included Utah's desire for statehood), then it really isn't a different simple point.

Yes it is. As you perfectly well know, if you've actually tried doing any "Thinking" about the subject.

As I already pointed out to someone similarly uninterested in truth: To say that some event E happened after, or even as a partial consequence, of some decision D is not the same as saying that D was made to bring about E.

To say that polygamy was the chief bone of contention between the Church of Jesus Christ and Protestant America is quite different -- entirely different, in fact -- to say that the Church abandoned polygamy in order to gain statehood for Utah.

Do I need to explain that in smaller words?

 

[theplains]

On 13/01/2016 at 0:55 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Do you believe the Bible directed the LDS Church leaders to believe and teach homosexuality 
is a sin or did the leaders come up with this on their own?

Thanks,
Jim

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

But Section 89 was given in response to a question from Emma.

Check-mate.

Well, you've made my point exactly.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Yes, but there's a clear distinction between the two cases. Bob Jones had its own policy regarding interracial dating. BYU had no policy regarding Priesthood ordination and had no say regarding who was ordained or when.

The two things are not like each other.

But it's clearly not only tax exemption policies that are not constrained by the First Amendment. Said amendment didn't seem to have much traction in Reynolds, or indeed in any of the anti-polygamy cases in the late 19th century.

Which cases, we are now told, were merely a convenient cover for Utah's campaign to gain statehood.

 

I don't agree.  Moreover, the First Amendment was almost a non-consideration in Reynolds as Reynolds was the first decision to address church and state issues.      

Edited January 15, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Russell C McGregor]

7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't agree.  

With which part?

7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Moreover, the First Amendment was almost a non-consideration in Reynolds as Reynolds was the first decision to address church and state issues.      

Doesn't that seem strange to you? Given that there wasn't a body of case law to be consulted, shouldn't the First Amendment have been relied upon all the more heavily as the only available authority?

 

 

[Thinking]

19 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Yes it is. As you perfectly well know, if you've actually tried doing any "Thinking" about the subject.

As I already pointed out to someone similarly uninterested in truth: To say that some event E happened after, or even as a partial consequence, of some decision D is not the same as saying that D was made to bring about E.

To say that polygamy was the chief bone of contention between the Church of Jesus Christ and Protestant America is quite different -- entirely different, in fact -- to say that the Church abandoned polygamy in order to gain statehood for Utah.

Without explicitly saying it, the LDS Church suggests such in one of its essays.

Quote

The Manifesto marked a new relationship with the federal government and the nation: prosecution of polygamists declined, plural wives came out of hiding and assumed their married names, and husbands interacted more freely with their families, especially after U.S. president Benjamin Harrison granted general amnesty to Mormon polygamists in 1893. Three years later, Utah became a state with a constitution that banned polygamy.

The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage

 

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

This is a strange thing to hear from a guy who believes that when the leaders of the Church speak, the thinking has been done.

 

As you well know, this is a hackneyed and false caricature often used by anti-Mormons to attack the Latter-day Saints. It comes from a ward teacher's message published back in the 1940s that was discredited by the president of the Church almost as soon as it appeared.

That you are using this anti-Mormonism -- and using it repeatedly -- is telling.

In observing that the poster calling himself Thinking was viewing uncritically an elementary-level rendition of Utah history pertaining to the discontinuance of polygamy, I was making sardonic allusion to this trite anti-Mormon weapon.

But you knew that already -- or should have.

 

Edited to add:

Here's a FairMormon treatment on the "the thinking has been done" episode.

Here's another one, from FairMormon Answers, containing a detailed analysis of this stock anti-Mormon accusation:

 

Quote

 

Question: When our leaders speak, has the thinking been done?
Answer: No.

Critics use a statement made in the Ward Teachers' Message published in the Improvement Era in June 1945 to claim that members must do whatever Church leaders say without question. The statement is presented by the critics as follows:

Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy.... Lucifer ... wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to "do their own thinking."...

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy.^[3]

We provide the complete quote below, with the phrases emphasized by the critics in bold type:

Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. One cannot speak evil of the Lord's anointed and retain the Holy Spirit in his heart.

It should be remembered that Lucifer has a very cunning way of convincing unsuspecting souls that the General Authorities of the Church are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. This sort of game is Satan's favorite pastime, and he has practiced it on believing souls since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to "do their own thinking." He specializes in suggesting that our leaders are in error while he plays the blinding rays of apostasy in the eyes of those whom he thus beguiles. What cunning! And to think that some of our members are deceived by this trickery.

The following words of the Prophet Joseph Smith should be memorized by every Latter-day Saint and repeated often enough to insure their never being forgotten:

I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 156-157.)

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.

Response from President George Albert Smith regarding the statement: "The passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church"

When the ward teaching message was published, concerns were raised regarding how this statement would be interpreted. President George Albert Smith responded to a concern expressed by Dr. Raymond A. Cope of the First Unitarian Society:

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not "prepared" by "one of our leaders." However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.^[4]

Finally, we should point out that, in a 1946 letter to Dean Brimhall, Elder Albert E. Bowen of the Quorum of the Twelve rejected the ward teachers' message even more forcefully than had President Smith and explained that it had been written by a young clerk in the Presiding Bishop's office and sent out without anyone in authority having approved it.^[5]

Brigham Young: "I exhort you to think for yourselves"

Brigham Young made the following statements:

Ladies and gentlemen, I exhort you to think for yourselves, and read your Bibles for yourselves, get the Holy Spirit for yourselves, and pray for yourselves.^[6]

The great masses of the people neither think nor act for themselves. . . . I see too much of this gross ignorance among this chosen people of God.^[7]

Joseph Smith said the following:

All have the privilege of thinking for themselves upon all matters relative to conscience. . . . We are not disposed, had we the power, to deprive anyone of exercising that free independence of mind which heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the human family as one of its choicest gifts.^[8]

Dallin H. Oaks: "We can be united in following our leaders and yet independent in knowing for ourselves."

Dallin H. Oaks shared the following in the April 2008 conference:

Members who have a testimony and who act upon it under the direction of their Church leaders are sometimes accused of blind obedience.

Of course, we have leaders, and of course, we are subject to their decisions and directions in the operation of the Church and in the performance of needed priesthood ordinances. But when it comes to learning and knowing the truth of the gospel—our personal testimonies—we each have a direct relationship with God, our Eternal Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, through the powerful witness of the Holy Ghost. This is what our critics fail to understand. It puzzles them that we can be united in following our leaders and yet independent in knowing for ourselves.

Perhaps the puzzle some feel can be explained by the reality that each of us has two different channels to God. We have a channel of governance through our prophet and other leaders. This channel, which has to do with doctrine, ordinances, and commandments, results in obedience. We also have a channel of personal testimony, which is direct to God. This has to do with His existence, our relationship to Him, and the truth of His restored gospel. This channel results in knowledge. These two channels are mutually reinforcing: knowledge encourages obedience (see Deuteronomy 5:27; Moses 5:11), and obedience enhances knowledge (see John 7:17; D&C 93:1).^[9]

Additional quotes from both early and modern Church leaders may be found here.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd