Bernard Gui Posted March 8, 2016 Author Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: You mean -- like the world? The Church is so fortunate in that, even though its leaders are imperfect and fallible, its critics are perfect and infallible. I'm just wondering what's next on the critic agenda. Perhaps one thing is to make sure only perfect and infallible leaders are chosen? Obviously the current method is inadequate. Perhaps advanced degrees in sociology, philosophy, and theology might help? Edited March 8, 2016 by Bernard Gui
Guest Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: What are the next sins the Church should call good? None or no sin should ever be called good, lest we offend God. Do I need to go back and re-read? Because my point is that the Church cannot and should not ever call evil or sins good. Sorry if that is not what I made clear.
JLHPROF Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I'm not sure we will be spared that indignity. I hope we are, because the alternative if the sealing ordinances are lost is utter destruction.
consiglieri Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 53 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Who is my husband and who is my father? The gospel answer could be Jesus and Jesus. And the nub of the gospel is when we minister to the marginalized, we are ministering to Jesus. I would hate to think we are treating Jesus in the same manner we are treating homosexual members of the Church. But that seems to be what Jesus teaches.
bluebell Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: What new issues of morality will the Church be measured against? Who can say?? That we don't baptized animals? I really couldn't even guess where society will go.
CA Steve Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 30 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: What about our version still needs to be changed before it is acceptable? Why do we still have a prophet leading the church if nothing needs to be changed?
Sky Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 All I ask from the Church is that they do what they say they believe, as outlined on http://mormonsandgays.org. Let's make a safe place in all of our wards and stakes for LGBT/SSA people to feel welcome and validated in their experiences. This issue isn't going away, and if we want them to stay a part of our faith, we have to create a more welcoming space for them. This does not require a change in doctrine. I'd also argue to make all church buildings green certified and climate change friendly, but that is another topic. 1
consiglieri Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: What about our version still needs to be changed before it is acceptable? I think this is a good line of questioning, Bernard. I know that there are some people who lobby for the ordination of women, or who lobby for the acceptance of homosexuals in the church. (Practicing homosexuals.) My take is a bit different. I think any church has the right to say women cannot hold their priesthood. I think any church has the right to say practicing homosexuals cannot be members. That is not where I am coming from. What I think the Church needs to do is simply to be honest with its own members. Let me give you a couple of examples. 1. I think the Church needs to be completely honest with its own members about its own history. Elder Packer in his "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect" speech to CES teachers several decades ago made it plain the teachers were to NOT teach the negative aspects of Church history to the students, but only a sanitized, white-washed, faith-promoting version of the history. "Not everything that is true is useful." I know the Church has now put up on its website a number of essays that explore these issues in greater depth than ever before. The Church would have gotten more credit for taking this step if they had done it before they were forced to do so by the widespread availability of the same information in non-Church sources. Essentially, the Church is just trying to manage the information already available to its members, and which is in large part causing massive disaffection. But at least it is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the essays are not an attempt to be truly honest and transparent, but rather an exercise in telling only as much information as the Church thinks the members already know. (Such as implying the priesthood ban was not doctrine while ignoring the 1949 First Presidency Statement saying it was doctrine and not policy.) 2. As I said above, I am fine with the Church saying practicing homosexuals cannot be members. What I find offensive is the Church publicly making all sorts of overtures to the gay community while secretly and surreptitiously adding a policy to the CHI-1 that prohibits ordinances from the children of parents living in a same-sex relationship. It is the duplicity of the enterprise I find alarming. Add to that the fact that the new policy contravenes a number of fundamental and core doctrines and principles of the LDS Church, and you have the makings for a lot of Mormons starting to lose faith in their leaders. 3. On top of that, this leaked policy was clarified with an interview by Elder Christoffersen the following day in which he did not mention revelation one time. The interview was followed up one week later with a First Presidency letter affirming the leaked policy was true, and again not mentioning revelation as the source. Then, two months later, Elder Nelson gets up in a YSA broadcast and for the first time says that the new policy was received by revelation by Thomas Monson and that the rest of the apostles were "privileged" to sustain it. Elder Nelson does not explain why this news is being broadcast for the first time two months after the policy leak, nor does he explain why he is announcing it rather than President Monson and/or the First Presidency, nor does he explain why the First Presidency didn't claim revelation in their letter issues one week after the leak, or why Elder Christoffersen didn't mention it in his extended interview the day after the leak. The whole think smacks of desperation. It is another chink in the credibility armor of the leadership. I think that if the LDS Church were simply honest with its own members, it would help to solve a myriad of issues. This would include an acknowledgment that Church history shows doctrines thought to be immutable can change and have, in fact, changed. The institution of the priesthood ban in 1852, and its subsequent lifting in 1978, are key elements here, as is the institution of plural marriage in the 1830's, and its subsequent prohibition in 1890, and again in 1904. Things that were thought to be eternal have turned out not to be. (And before the usual suspects jump on the priesthood ban not believed to be "eternal," it was taught that no black man would have the priesthood until every white man ever born had the opportunity, so let's not get off on a ridiculous tangent, okay?) The fact is plural marriage was prophesied to be eternal and everlasting, but it wasn't. The priesthood ban was taught to be in effect until every white man born had the opportunity to receive the priesthood, but it wasn't. How should this inform our understanding of the Church's current stance on LGBT issues? A reasonable person would say that this may be the way Church leadership feels at present, but this position may change in the future based on further light and knowledge. That would be the reasonable thing. Instead, we are hear pronouncements that this doctrine will never change. But that is what we heard about plural marriage. So we know it isn't true. This is a disconnect for many members--to hear LDS leaders say something the member knows isn't true, and something the member knows the LDS leader knows isn't true--or at least should know isn't true. All of this adds to a loss of belief in the authority of LDS leaders to make these sorts of pronouncements. Again, this is why I feel that the best thing the LDS Church could do with its members is simply to be honest with them. The positions the LDS Church takes on doctrinal and moral issues are its own business. But the LDS Church should trust its members to be honest with them about it.
consiglieri Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 21 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Why do we still have a prophet leading the church if nothing needs to be changed? "Apostasy" is when your church changes. "Continuing revelation" is when my church changes.
Teancum Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 8 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Nothing can ever suffice for the "progressives" because they believe in continuing to change society, and as a result, the Church as well. Ah well the church: gave up to the US government on the practice of polygamy so Utah could become a state and so the US government would release the church property it has seized. changed its position on the preisthood banned and most recently tossed all the LDS leaders explanations for the ban as false and folklore. Repudiated BYs odd teachings on Adam/God and blood atonement. published an essay that the BOA may not be a literal translation. Of the papyri but the papyri may have been a catylist removed from canon without a vote the lectures on faith that were canonized with a vote and did so clearly because they disagreed with later LDS teachings about the Godhead.
JLHPROF Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 49 minutes ago, consiglieri said: "Apostasy" is when your church changes. "Continuing revelation" is when my church changes. No, apostasy is when we move away from the truth. Continuing revelation is when God provides additional truth. 2
JLHPROF Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 1 minute ago, Teancum said: Ah well the church: gave up to the US government on the practice of polygamy so Utah could become a state and so the US government would release the church property it has seized. Yep. changed its position on the preisthood banned and most recently tossed all the LDS leaders explanations for the ban as false and folklore. Yep. Repudiated BYs odd teachings on Adam/God and blood atonement. Yep. published an essay that the BOA may not be a literal translation. Of the papyri but the papyri may have been a catylist Yep. removed from canon without a vote the lectures on faith that were canonized with a vote and did so clearly because they disagreed with later LDS teachings about the Godhead. Yep. And how many of those had to do with progressive members advocating for social change?
The Nehor Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: What more needs to be done to neuter the Church? It will not be neutered. There are lots of attempts to water it down.
Russell C McGregor Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: This would include an acknowledgment that Church history shows doctrines thought to be immutable can change and have, in fact, changed. The institution of the priesthood ban in 1852, and its subsequent lifting in 1978, are key elements here, as is the institution of plural marriage in the 1830's, and its subsequent prohibition in 1890, and again in 1904. Things that were thought to be eternal have turned out not to be. (And before the usual suspects jump on the priesthood ban not believed to be "eternal," it was taught that no black man would have the priesthood until every white man ever born had the opportunity, so let's not get off on a ridiculous tangent, okay?) But Consig: I realise you don't process facts very well, but "until every white man ever born had the opportunity" is a finite amount of time. IOW, not eternal. So you admit that it's not eternal, but try to squash discussion of it by calling it "a ridiculous tangent." 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: But the LDS Church should trust its members to be honest with them about it. The Church has never been less honest with its members than you are in an average post. 1
Teancum Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Point is the church changes.....a lot.... and I could argue at least the first three had social issue impact .
Gray Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: In what ways does it still need to evolve? Well, depends on what the end goal is. In order to maintain the same kind of status it's had the last 50 years or so, it needs to continue to follow the rights revolution about generation or so behind the rest of the country. That way it appeals to conservatives and maintains an appearance of stability in a world that is always shifting. But it doesn't lag SO far behind so as to make continued membership intolerable for functional members of society.
Gray Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: What are the next sins the Church should call good? And the other side of the coin - what good things should the church call sins in order to appeal to the conservative base?
Jeanne Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: I think this is a good line of questioning, Bernard. I know that there are some people who lobby for the ordination of women, or who lobby for the acceptance of homosexuals in the church. (Practicing homosexuals.) My take is a bit different. I think any church has the right to say women cannot hold their priesthood. I think any church has the right to say practicing homosexuals cannot be members. That is not where I am coming from. What I think the Church needs to do is simply to be honest with its own members. Let me give you a couple of examples. 1. I think the Church needs to be completely honest with its own members about its own history. Elder Packer in his "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect" speech to CES teachers several decades ago made it plain the teachers were to NOT teach the negative aspects of Church history to the students, but only a sanitized, white-washed, faith-promoting version of the history. "Not everything that is true is useful." I know the Church has now put up on its website a number of essays that explore these issues in greater depth than ever before. The Church would have gotten more credit for taking this step if they had done it before they were forced to do so by the widespread availability of the same information in non-Church sources. Essentially, the Church is just trying to manage the information already available to its members, and which is in large part causing massive disaffection. But at least it is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the essays are not an attempt to be truly honest and transparent, but rather an exercise in telling only as much information as the Church thinks the members already know. (Such as implying the priesthood ban was not doctrine while ignoring the 1949 First Presidency Statement saying it was doctrine and not policy.) 2. As I said above, I am fine with the Church saying practicing homosexuals cannot be members. What I find offensive is the Church publicly making all sorts of overtures to the gay community while secretly and surreptitiously adding a policy to the CHI-1 that prohibits ordinances from the children of parents living in a same-sex relationship. It is the duplicity of the enterprise I find alarming. Add to that the fact that the new policy contravenes a number of fundamental and core doctrines and principles of the LDS Church, and you have the makings for a lot of Mormons starting to lose faith in their leaders. 3. On top of that, this leaked policy was clarified with an interview by Elder Christoffersen the following day in which he did not mention revelation one time. The interview was followed up one week later with a First Presidency letter affirming the leaked policy was true, and again not mentioning revelation as the source. Then, two months later, Elder Nelson gets up in a YSA broadcast and for the first time says that the new policy was received by revelation by Thomas Monson and that the rest of the apostles were "privileged" to sustain it. Elder Nelson does not explain why this news is being broadcast for the first time two months after the policy leak, nor does he explain why he is announcing it rather than President Monson and/or the First Presidency, nor does he explain why the First Presidency didn't claim revelation in their letter issues one week after the leak, or why Elder Christoffersen didn't mention it in his extended interview the day after the leak. The whole think smacks of desperation. It is another chink in the credibility armor of the leadership. I think that if the LDS Church were simply honest with its own members, it would help to solve a myriad of issues. This would include an acknowledgment that Church history shows doctrines thought to be immutable can change and have, in fact, changed. The institution of the priesthood ban in 1852, and its subsequent lifting in 1978, are key elements here, as is the institution of plural marriage in the 1830's, and its subsequent prohibition in 1890, and again in 1904. Things that were thought to be eternal have turned out not to be. (And before the usual suspects jump on the priesthood ban not believed to be "eternal," it was taught that no black man would have the priesthood until every white man ever born had the opportunity, so let's not get off on a ridiculous tangent, okay?) The fact is plural marriage was prophesied to be eternal and everlasting, but it wasn't. The priesthood ban was taught to be in effect until every white man born had the opportunity to receive the priesthood, but it wasn't. How should this inform our understanding of the Church's current stance on LGBT issues? A reasonable person would say that this may be the way Church leadership feels at present, but this position may change in the future based on further light and knowledge. That would be the reasonable thing. Instead, we are hear pronouncements that this doctrine will never change. But that is what we heard about plural marriage. So we know it isn't true. This is a disconnect for many members--to hear LDS leaders say something the member knows isn't true, and something the member knows the LDS leader knows isn't true--or at least should know isn't true. All of this adds to a loss of belief in the authority of LDS leaders to make these sorts of pronouncements. Again, this is why I feel that the best thing the LDS Church could do with its members is simply to be honest with them. The positions the LDS Church takes on doctrinal and moral issues are its own business. But the LDS Church should trust its members to be honest with them about it. Love this. Treating and trusting members does a lot for their self worth and creates a better community of understanding. Treating adults as adults. It also speaks for seeing a better value of agency.
Bernard Gui Posted March 8, 2016 Author Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, Pa Pa said: None or no sin should ever be called good, lest we offend God. Do I need to go back and re-read? Because my point is that the Church cannot and should not ever call evil or sins good. Sorry if that is not what I made clear. My question is for critics who want the Church to change its position on important moral issues. I agree with you, but there are many here who don't. I would like to know other wrongs they believe the Church should make right. Edited March 8, 2016 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted March 8, 2016 Author Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I hope we are, because the alternative if the sealing ordinances are lost is utter destruction. I don't think they would be lost because the keys to the ordinances are held safely by the 12 and First Presidency, not in the structures themselves. We have rebuilt before and we can rebuild again. Edited March 8, 2016 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted March 8, 2016 Author Posted March 8, 2016 9 hours ago, consiglieri said: The gospel answer could be Jesus and Jesus. And the nub of the gospel is when we minister to the marginalized, we are ministering to Jesus. I would hate to think we are treating Jesus in the same manner we are treating homosexual members of the Church. But that seems to be what Jesus teaches. I already stipulated that. Would you be satisfied, then, if the Church fully embraced homosexuality and ssm?
Bernard Gui Posted March 8, 2016 Author Posted March 8, 2016 9 hours ago, bluebell said: Who can say?? That we don't baptized animals? I really couldn't even guess where society will go. How about accepting other behavior that has traditionally been considered deviant? Our culture is certainly traveling down that road. At what point do we say, "This far and no more?" How much going along to get along will our members tolerate?
Bernard Gui Posted March 8, 2016 Author Posted March 8, 2016 9 hours ago, CA Steve said: Why do we still have a prophet leading the church if nothing needs to be changed? What needs to be changed and who decides that?
Bernard Gui Posted March 8, 2016 Author Posted March 8, 2016 9 hours ago, Sky said: All I ask from the Church is that they do what they say they believe, as outlined on http://mormonsandgays.org. Let's make a safe place in all of our wards and stakes for LGBT/SSA people to feel welcome and validated in their experiences. This issue isn't going away, and if we want them to stay a part of our faith, we have to create a more welcoming space for them. This does not require a change in doctrine. I'd also argue to make all church buildings green certified and climate change friendly, but that is another topic. What does a more welcoming space look like? It seems that the doctrine is the problem for many.
Bernard Gui Posted March 8, 2016 Author Posted March 8, 2016 9 hours ago, consiglieri said: I think this is a good line of questioning, Bernard. I know that there are some people who lobby for the ordination of women, or who lobby for the acceptance of homosexuals in the church. (Practicing homosexuals.) My take is a bit different. I think any church has the right to say women cannot hold their priesthood. I think any church has the right to say practicing homosexuals cannot be members. That is not where I am coming from. What I think the Church needs to do is simply to be honest with its own members. Let me give you a couple of examples.... The positions the LDS Church takes on doctrinal and moral issues are its own business. But the LDS Church should trust its members to be honest with them about it. Thanks for expressing your thoughts. I hear you saying that one thing to change would be to deal openly and honestly with controversial historical issues.
Recommended Posts