The Nehor Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I understand you to say that the Church must lay aside its claim to the Restoration, the covenants of the temple, and its role in the coming of the Kingdom of God in order to be right with the world. I'm not sure what the plans for world domination are, but that sounds ambitious and a bit nefarious. It involves sentient toasters, lots of tampons, and one gigantic rubber band ball. The details are classified. 2
Gray Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I understand you are saying the time will come to fully accept gay marriage. Does that include temple sealing? Once gay marriage is accepted, what remains of our fundamentalism? Yes and yes. Typically we tend to focus on the surface level of scriptures. It seems very important in the traditional Mormon view that these stories have some solid basis in history. Adam and Eve have to be real people, for some reason. There really must have been a garden and a literal fall. Unfortunately there is no real meaning at that level of the story. It would be nice to have a stronger doctrinal framework that doesn't fly apart in the face of critical scholarship and anthropology. There is a lot of depth to the scriptures and I feel like we're missing most of it. Honestly though that's kind of back burner for me. In a sense it doesn't matter all that much - I'm not obliged to be a literalist just because the manuals use that framework. I'm more concerned with how we're treating our fellow human beings. Edited March 9, 2016 by Gray 4
CA Steve Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Loaded? We all seem to agree the Church and its leaders are fallible. After we get things right by ordaining women to the Priesthood and embracing ssm as many here fervently want, what other basic changes in doctrine and practice need to be made? I understand you would like to have more of open discussions - isn't that what we are doing? - but that's not the kind of change I am asking about. We are having a discussion on an obscure message board. That is far cry from having this same discussion in a Church classroom, or outside of temple square before conference, or on a long running public podcast whose host uses his own name, or in a letter to a CES director made public and supported by its author and so on. Even here, as Nehor quickly illustrated, there are many whose reaction to any such topics that disagree with their personal view of "the Church" is to attack the person with whom they disagree. So no, that isn't what we are doing here if by we you include everyone here who posts. So to answer your OP question Quote My question is, in this perpetual quest for compromise with the world, what new obstacles must be overcome in the Church, or will this suffice? If the Church were to embrace SSM and allow women full access to the priesthood, while at the same time continuing its present course regarding dissent, then no I don't think that would suffice. On the other hand, open discussion might just be kind of change that might suffice. 1
CA Steve Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I understand you are saying the time will come to fully accept gay marriage. Does that include temple sealing? Once gay marriage is accepted, what remains of our fundamentalism? Shouldn't our fundamentalism include practicing polygamy here on earth and excluding people from the priesthood based on how we think they acted in the preexistance? On Edit. Or how about the law of consecration, the United Order, gathering to a Zion located in Missouri, Adam God doctrine, shouldn't they also be included in our fundamentalism? Edited March 9, 2016 by CA Steve 1
Rivers Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 On March 7, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Bernard Gui said: Some here express the fervent hope that the enlightened Church will change its course and embrace the current campaigns of the Sexual Revolution. Let's suppose all that is hoped for comes to pass, and in just a few years the pressure is relieved as the Church saves itself from destruction by sustaining a ssm woman as its President. My question is, in this perpetual quest for compromise with the world, what new obstacles must be overcome in the Church, or will this suffice? We will need a half-Asian half-black gay transsexual atheist feminist socialist to be the President of the church. That might do it.
JLHPROF Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, Rivers said: We will need a half-Asian half-black gay transsexual atheist feminist socialist to be the President of the church. That might do it. Only if the new goal of the Church is to force God to unveil his hand and start dealing out tribulations. I think we'd trigger a response from the heavens long before we were allowed to get to that point.
Russell C McGregor Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 19 minutes ago, Rivers said: We will need a half-Asian half-black gay transsexual atheist feminist socialist to be the President of the church. That might do it. I know a Maori feminist socialist who thinks she knows better than the President of the Church. Will she do? Mind you, her level of self-esteem is such that she cannot consistently be called an atheist.
Bernard Gui Posted March 9, 2016 Author Posted March 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Rivers said: We will need a half-Asian half-black gay transsexual atheist feminist socialist to be the President of the church. That might do it. You forgot Polish.
Bernard Gui Posted March 9, 2016 Author Posted March 9, 2016 7 hours ago, CA Steve said: We are having a discussion on an obscure message board. That is far cry from having this same discussion in a Church classroom, or outside of temple square before conference, or on a long running public podcast whose host uses his own name, or in a letter to a CES director made public and supported by its author and so on. Even here, as Nehor quickly illustrated, there are many whose reaction to any such topics that disagree with their personal view of "the Church" is to attack the person with whom they disagree. So no, that isn't what we are doing here if by we you include everyone here who posts. So to answer your OP question If the Church were to embrace SSM and allow women full access to the priesthood, while at the same time continuing its present course regarding dissent, then no I don't think that would suffice. On the other hand, open discussion might just be kind of change that might suffice. I'm trying hard to keep on subject..... regarding the OP, there was no stipulation that the church would continue its present course regarding dissent, but if the SSM and female ordinations were to be adopted, it would make your objection moot. Unless, of course, you think there are further areas that need course correction. It is those areas that I am asking about. What other things need correction?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: I know a Maori feminist socialist who thinks she knows better than the President of the Church. Will she do? Mind you, her level of self-esteem is such that she cannot consistently be called an atheist. Let me guess: Does she have a blog?
Bernard Gui Posted March 9, 2016 Author Posted March 9, 2016 6 hours ago, CA Steve said: Shouldn't our fundamentalism include practicing polygamy here on earth and excluding people from the priesthood based on how we think they acted in the preexistance? On Edit. Or how about the law of consecration, the United Order, gathering to a Zion located in Missouri, Adam God doctrine, shouldn't they also be included in our fundamentalism? Those issues, of course, are not the topic of this discussion. I am asking "Once those issues have been put to rest (which many have been and are not part of this discussion, thank you), what do you see remaining, particularly in the area of morality?"
Bernard Gui Posted March 9, 2016 Author Posted March 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: I know a Maori feminist socialist who thinks she knows better than the President of the Church. Will she do? Mind you, her level of self-esteem is such that she cannot consistently be called an atheist. If one knows better than the prophets and apostles, does that mean one also knows better than God?
Russell C McGregor Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Let me guess: Does she have a blog? Funnily enough, she does. 1
Teancum Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 On 3/8/2016 at 5:18 AM, Bernard Gui said: All that has been stipulated. The question is, supposing the Church comes clean with all the concerns you expressed, will that be sufficient for you? Will you be satisfied? Well Bernard here is the deal at least for me. When the Church I grew up in, gave two years of my life full time too, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to (and I still tithe and give offerings) gave thousands of hours of my time too, taught all my children that it is The Only True and Living Church on the earth and that it is the ONLY Church that holds God's true priesthood and can administer saving ordinances and so on, tells me that I must follow the brethren, the prophet cannot lead the Church astray, to openly challenge the brethren is to be in apostasy and risk your membership in said Church.... Well I expect better. When I was a missionary we taught investigators that having a living prophet on the earth meant something and made us special. But now when it comes to apologists at least well they were just men, they make mistakes, you did not study enough and on and on. Sure men make mistakes and I don't expect they won't, But our leaders have do and will get it wrong a lot on major issues. So why should I trust them more than the pope, some other religious leader or even ultimately what I conclude myself? I seem to recall the teaching "where much is given much is expected." The same holds true for those who lead the LDS Church. When great claims and special access to God is claimed much is expected. Really it is not an issue of being satisfied or not with what the Church "comes clean" with for the past. Sure that will help. But what will the Church be and claim today that may be abandoned tomorrow? 2
Teancum Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 3 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: I know a Maori feminist socialist who thinks she knows better than the President of the Church. Will she do? Mind you, her level of self-esteem is such that she cannot consistently be called an atheist. Do you really know her? Personally?
Teancum Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said: Funnily enough, she does. I bet she really really bugs you. A lot.
Bernard Gui Posted March 11, 2016 Author Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) On March 8, 2016 at 8:15 AM, CA Steve said: double post Edited March 11, 2016 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted March 11, 2016 Author Posted March 11, 2016 On March 10, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Teancum said: Well Bernard here is the deal at least for me. When the Church I grew up in, gave two years of my life full time too, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to (and I still tithe and give offerings) gave thousands of hours of my time too, taught all my children that it is The Only True and Living Church on the earth and that it is the ONLY Church that holds God's true priesthood and can administer saving ordinances and so on, tells me that I must follow the brethren, the prophet cannot lead the Church astray, to openly challenge the brethren is to be in apostasy and risk your membership in said Church.... Well I expect better. When I was a missionary we taught investigators that having a living prophet on the earth meant something and made us special. But now when it comes to apologists at least well they were just men, they make mistakes, you did not study enough and on and on. Sure men make mistakes and I don't expect they won't, But our leaders have do and will get it wrong a lot on major issues. So why should I trust them more than the pope, some other religious leader or even ultimately what I conclude myself? I seem to recall the teaching "where much is given much is expected." The same holds true for those who lead the LDS Church. When great claims and special access to God is claimed much is expected. Really it is not an issue of being satisfied or not with what the Church "comes clean" with for the past. Sure that will help. But what will the Church be and claim today that may be abandoned tomorrow? What issues do they have it wrong on? My question is, what do we have today that must be abandoned tomorrow?
The Nehor Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 On 3/10/2016 at 6:29 PM, Teancum said: I seem to recall the teaching "where much is given much is expected." The same holds true for those who lead the LDS Church. When great claims and special access to God is claimed much is expected. As someone who has or at least had the Holy Ghost are you sure you want to set the bar that high? You get judged by whatever standard you choose to judge others by. Good luck. 1
stemelbow Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 On 3/9/2016 at 1:53 PM, Russell C McGregor said: I know a Maori feminist socialist who thinks she knows better than the President of the Church. Will she do? Mind you, her level of self-esteem is such that she cannot consistently be called an atheist. And you think you know better than her. how dare people disagree with others. if they disagree with the wrong people they will get lampooned.
rockpond Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 On 3/9/2016 at 1:53 PM, Russell C McGregor said: Mind you, her level of self-esteem is such that she cannot consistently be called an atheist. I find much to like and appreciate in Gina Colvin (aka KiwiMormon) but I am still human enough that I laughed out loud at your comment here.
Teancum Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: What issues do they have it wrong on? My question is, what do we have today that must be abandoned tomorrow? For one the recent policy change on homosexual marriage being grounds for immediate apostasy and excommunication and the issues related to children of such relationships.
Bernard Gui Posted March 15, 2016 Author Posted March 15, 2016 On March 10, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Teancum said: For one the recent policy change on homosexual marriage being grounds for immediate apostasy and excommunication and the issues related to children of such relationships. But in the OP I stipulated that this would be changed. What else is wrong beyond that and ordaining women?
Bobbieaware Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) On March 6, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Bernard Gui said: Some here express the fervent hope that the enlightened Church will change its course and embrace the current campaigns of the Sexual Revolution. Let's suppose all that is hoped for comes to pass, and in just a few years the pressure is relieved as the Church saves itself from destruction by sustaining a ssm woman as its President. My question is, in this perpetual quest for compromise with the world, what new obstacles must be overcome in the Church, or will this suffice? After having read the contents of this thread, I come back to your opening post and provide a simple method to employ so as to readily obtain the answers to your question: All one needs to do is use the scriptures to inform the mind as to the kinds of changes the devil himself would like to see in the Church in order to make it his own and then you will find your answers. For example, as the polar opposite of God a major goal of the devil must be the establishment of a regime of total sexual immorality in the Church. So as the adversary carefully leads the Church down to hell, one can logically anticipate the steps he will take on his sexual immorality agenda by determining where the Church is now and where he ultimately wants it to go. Therefore, one can logically conclude that after he has succeeded in making gay marriage a "sacrament" of the Church, the next step will likely be to sanctify polygamous gay marriages and polygamous bisexual marriages. And from there the process of sexual degeneracy will continue regressively downward until the Church arrives at a state of total sexual anarchy and chaos, a comdition where sexual morality will have been totally redefined. The devil isn't a half-measures kind of guy, but he will tolerate half-measures as a means to blind and deceive the people on the way to their total destruction. In all things pertaining to Church and kingdom of God, the devil's endgame is the overthrow of all righteousness and the complete enslavement of the people. His prime strategy is to create an illusion of freedom and liberation as he persuades the members to indulge in sin, even calling it righteousness, until the unwary have been grasped by the merciless shackles and chains of TOTAL enslavement to sin. This is the same method the devil employed to lure the Nephites into sin and degradation until they had fully ripened in iniquity; and as a consequence of their folly God utterly destroyed them from off the face of the earth as the devil and his angels stood by laughing. Leaving the devil out of discussions such as this one is unwise. Edited March 16, 2016 by Bobbieaware 1
Gray Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 On 3/6/2016 at 10:52 AM, Bernard Gui said: Some here express the fervent hope that the enlightened Church will change its course and embrace the current campaigns of the Sexual Revolution. Let's suppose all that is hoped for comes to pass, and in just a few years the pressure is relieved as the Church saves itself from destruction by sustaining a ssm woman as its President. My question is, in this perpetual quest for compromise with the world, what new obstacles must be overcome in the Church, or will this suffice? What does "the world" mean here? Is that a stand in for liberalism, but not conservatism?
Recommended Posts