How much influence did the LDS Church have on California Prop 8?

[rodheadlee]

On 5/24/2016 at 7:15 AM, rodheadlee said:

Yeah, I've tried to, I've been going to school 3 days a week and studying 24/7 while trying to work a business. So in sumnation the Church put out a huge effort with just enough influence to be the straw that broke the camel's back and caused Prop 8 to be passed. but "the judge wasn't going to look at the 27- 8"x10" color glossy photos" and prop 8 was denied as un-constitutional. For extra points can you name the movie the quote was from?

Also, the stats Cinepro quoted and I quoted appears to show that the Church has grown 100% in California since 2014 despite their involvement in Prop 8. I also would like to say that I have come full circle and despite believing Heavenly Father will never accept SSM as an eternal law or institution I believe LGBT folks should have the right to marry. I also understand why the Church got involved and that we as a country will reap the harvest of the seeds we sow and therefore their efforts were right in their eyes.

In this post I should have wrote appears to show,. The quote was from the 1969 movie Alice's Restaurant starring Arlo Guthrie.

[bluebell]

21 hours ago, rockpond said:

Do you believe that this has ever happened in this dispensation?

To be honest, i haven't really studied it.  I tend to stick with stuff that only concerns me personally.  

[bluebell]

20 hours ago, Gray said:

Can God force people to get over their prejudices? What if those prejudices were preventing an accurate understanding of revelation?

When it comes to people who sincerely want to know His will, I don't think He would have to.  Take Peter, for example, who was prejudice against gentiles.  The Lord was able to get him over that prejudice without force.  The same can be said for Paul, who was extremely prejudice against Christians.

I think that He allows us to grow amid our prejudices sometimes, but that when He needs to He knows how to teach His servants.

Quote

More force? Where does agency come in?

I'm sorry, but i don't understand these questions.  

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When it comes to people who sincerely want to know His will, I don't think He would have to.  Take Peter, for example, who was prejudice against gentiles.  The Lord was able to get him over that prejudice without force.  The same can be said for Paul, who was extremely prejudice against Christians.

I think that He allows us to grow amid our prejudices sometimes, but that when He needs to He knows how to teach His servants.

The important thing to remember is that while those are inspirational stories, they don't necessarily represent how it works in real life. God didn't step in and force Brigham Young to get over his prejudice against black people, after all. 

 

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm sorry, but i don't understand these questions.  

If God is going to kill off prophets who don't sufficiently follow him, that kind of erases their agency, doesn't it?

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

The important thing to remember is that while those are inspirational stories, they don't necessarily represent how it works in real life. God didn't step in and force Brigham Young to get over his prejudice against black people, after all. 

 

If God is going to kill off prophets who don't sufficiently follow him, that kind of erases their agency, doesn't it?

I disagree that the scriptures don't represent real life so no, I don't think that's an important thing to remember.

And no, I don't think being removed from a calling because you aren't doing it removes agency. Agency allows us to choose good or evil, it doesn't promise no consequences for those choices. 

If a prophet was removed for trying to lead God's church astray it would be a consequence of the Prophet's use of agency. 

[Gray]

Just now, bluebell said:

I disagree that the scriptures don't represent real life so no, I don't think that's an important thing to remember.

And no, I don't think being removed from a calling because you aren't doing it removes agency. Agency allows us to choose good or evil, it doesn't promise no consequences for those choices. 

If a prophet was removed for trying to lead God's church astray it would be a consequence of the Prophet's use of agency. 

The only way prophets get removed from callings is through death, though, right? How is killing some one unless they obey NOT forcing them? 

And if the stories of Paul and Peter are literal representations of how it works, why didn't God get through to Brigham Young about his racism?

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

The only way prophets get removed from callings is through death, though, right? How is killing some one unless they obey NOT forcing them? 

And if the stories of Paul and Peter are literal representations of how it works, why didn't God get through to Brigham Young about his racism?

Because as I said, such a death would be the consequence of the prophet's use of agency.  

Even our use of agency has limits. We are promised that we are free to choose good or evil. Once we've chosen one or the other, we are not promised our agency will continue.

As for BY, I can only guess. Whatever God's reason I think it would ultimately boil down to BY's prejudices not contravening God's will. 

I think God works with our prejudices sometimes but that He's not held hostage by them. 

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because as I said, such a death would be the consequence of the prophet's use of agency.  

Even our use of agency has limits. We are promised that we are free to choose good or evil. Once we've chosen one or the other, we are not promised our agency will continue.

So if God wanted to force us to do something, how would he even go about doing it? Normally we say that if someone was made to do something at gunpoint, that they were forced to do it. 

 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As for BY, I can only guess. Whatever God's reason I think it would ultimately boil down to BY's prejudices not contravening God's will. 

I think God works with our prejudices sometimes but that He's not held hostage by them. 

Perhaps then for whatever reason the prejudices of the current leaders are not contravening God's will. Perhaps God wants the church to learn from the mistake of this policy. Perhaps it's a teaching moment by letting them make this mistake. 

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

So if God wanted to force us to do something, how would he even go about doing it? Normally we say that if someone was made to do something at gunpoint, that they were forced to do it. 

He doesn't force us to do stuff, so i don't understand the question.   And no, I don't think we usually say that if someone was made to do something at gun point they have no agency.  The holocaust is an extreme example of just how much we as a society don't buy the 'I had to do it or they would have killed me' line of reasoning.   Agency remains.

The prophet isn't being forced to obey God or to do His will.  Think of the story in the OT with the poisonous serpents and the brazen serpent on the staff.  Life and death hung in the balance but whether or not the bitten person died was completely within their control (completely).  God didn't force obedience.  He provided a choice, and also provided consequences for each choice.    

It's the same for all of us when we refuse to obey God.  Just because physical death might be a consequence doesn't change the fact that we retain our agency.  Spiritual death is always the consequence of sin if you or I choose to disobey (essentially, we are all being held at gunpoint in mortality), but that doesn't mean we are forced to obey.  The existence of consequences does not negate our agency.

Quote

Perhaps then for whatever reason the prejudices of the current leaders are not contravening God's will. Perhaps God wants the church to learn from the mistake of this policy. Perhaps it's a teaching moment by letting them make this mistake. 

Could be.  Even if that's true, there is still safety in trusting our prophet or God would have contravened.  

However, we are right back where we started.  We don't know where the priesthood ban came from.  We do know where the current policy in regards to SSM came from (if we believe Pres. Nelson to be telling us the truth).  While i do believe that God sometimes allows us to continue in our prejudices even when He doesn't agree with them.  I don't believe that God would specifically inspire and direct His prophet and apostles down a road of prejudice when they go to Him and specifically ask Him what to do.

That's why i said a few posts ago that I don't see this issue the same as the priesthood ban.

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He doesn't force us to do stuff, so i don't understand the question.   And no, I don't think we usually say that if someone was made to do something at gun point they have no agency.  The holocaust is an extreme example of just how much we as a society don't buy the 'I had to do it or they would have killed me' line of reasoning.   Agency remains.

The prophet isn't being forced to obey God or to do His will.  Think of the story in the OT with the poisonous serpents and the brazen serpent on the staff.  Life and death hung in the balance but whether or not the bitten person died was completely within their control (completely).  God didn't force obedience.  He provided a choice, and also provided consequences for each choice.    

It's the same for all of us when we refuse to obey God.  Just because physical death might be a consequence doesn't change the fact that we retain our agency.  Spiritual death is always the consequence of sin if you or I choose to disobey (essentially, we are all being held at gunpoint in mortality), but that doesn't mean we are forced to obey.  The existence of consequences does not negate our agency.

For how you are defining agency, it doesn't sound like it's ever possible for anyone to force someone to do anything at all. I don't agree. Your interpretation renders the words "force" and "coercion" meaningless, and I think those words are meaningful. 

 

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

Could be.  Even if that's true, there is still safety in trusting our prophet or God would have contravened.  

However, we are right back where we started.  We don't know where the priesthood ban came from.  We do know where the current policy in regards to SSM came from (if we believe Pres. Nelson to be telling us the truth).  While i do believe that God sometimes allows us to continue in our prejudices even when He doesn't agree with them.  I don't believe that God would specifically inspire and direct His prophet and apostles down a road of prejudice when they go to Him and specifically ask Him what to do.

That's why i said a few posts ago that I don't see this issue the same as the priesthood ban.

We know where the priesthood ban came from - Brigham Young's interpretation of scripture. Brigham Young and countless other prophets also thought the priesthood ban was the will of God. I don't see the difference. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

For how you are defining agency, it doesn't sound like it's ever possible for anyone to force someone to do anything at all. I don't agree. Your interpretation renders the words "force" and "coercion" meaningless, and I think those words are meaningful. 

God could certainly force us.  But He doesn't, and the existence of consequences does not mean that He does.  I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree on it.

Quote

We know where the priesthood ban came from - Brigham Young's interpretation of scripture. Brigham Young and countless other prophets also thought the priesthood ban was the will of God. I don't see the difference. 

I hadn't heard that.  Can you share the reference that says the ban came from BY's interpretation of scripture?  If that's true though, then it supports my point.  The way the ban came about was not the same as the way the SSM policy came about.  

[Jeanne]

13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Perhaps people should commit their life not to follow men but follow Christ.   Of course following Christ might include following fallible men like apostles who make mistakes.  The question is how important in the grand scheme of things are these mistakes.  When I hear the prophet will not lead me astray, I don't take that to mean the prophet will not make errors or mistakes.  I just view that to mean that the prophet will not lead me away from Christ and what Christ expects of me and the ultimate goal of the Church.  Perhaps it would be like a soldier in WW2 under Patton.  If someone says  "follow George Patton and he will not lead me astry" I would take that to mean if I follow the orders of Patton, we will have victory and success and win even though Patton might make a mistake or two along the way.

I see and understand what you are saying..for you.  But for me..and me and many military..and Patton himself can follow Christ without following the apostles or the prophet.  People follow Christ and live good lives everyday without following these men.  How about just following the dictates of your conscience, your knowledge of Christ's life...and let the chips fall where they may.  We could all win a war that way.

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

God could certainly force us.  But He doesn't, and the existence of consequences does not mean that He does.  I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree on it.

How could he do that, hypothetically? 

Quote

I hadn't heard that.  Can you share the reference that says the ban came from BY's interpretation of scripture?  If that's true though, then it supports my point.  The way the ban came about was not the same as the way the SSM policy came about.  

How is prophetic interpretation of scripture different than praying for direction about policy? Both involve revelation, right? The problem with that is even if God gives revelation like that, it still has to pass through human consciousness, which is far from perfect. 

Regarding Brigham Young:

 

Quote

 Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in rememberance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off.

Note that Brigham Young claims prophetic knowledge of this curse of Cain/priesthood restriction thing. God did not step in and make Brigham Young get it right here. 

Edited May 25, 2016 by Gray

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

How could he do that, hypothetically? 

He's God.  He's all powerful.  Hypothetically, He's powerful enough to force humans to do His will.  Lucifer also recognized that such power existed, because he wanted to use it on us to get himself some glory.  How it would actually work, I have no idea and haven't spent any time trying to figure it out.

Quote

How is prophetic interpretation of scripture different than praying for direction about policy? Both involve revelation, right? The problem with that is even if God gives revelation like that, it still has to pass through human consciousness, which is far from perfect. 

I can only speak for myself, but i know that there is a difference between my ability to recognize the Lord's will when saying a ten minute prayer alone to understand scripture in the morning before reading a chapter in the Book of Mormon verses me and my entire family fasting, praying, supplicating the Lord, alone and together, at home and in the temple, for an extended period of time, to know how we should proceed regarding a family decision and then counseling together.

I believe that one process is much more open to personal prejudice interfering than the other.

Quote

 

Regarding Brigham Young:

 

Note that Brigham Young claims prophetic knowledge of this curse of Cain/priesthood restriction thing. God did not step in and make Brigham Young get it right here. 

 

This seems to be an explanation for the ban, rather than a declaration of where the ban came from.  Maybe it's the same thing, but he doesn't say.  It would have been wonderful if he had explained how he knew what he was claiming to know.  

I agree though that God did not step in to correct BY.  We've already talked about why that might have been.  

[Gray]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

He's God.  He's all powerful.  Hypothetically, He's powerful enough to force humans to do His will.  Lucifer also recognized that such power existed, because he wanted to use it on us to get himself some glory.  How it would actually work, I have no idea and haven't spent any time trying to figure it out.

How about death threats? 

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I can only speak for myself, but i know that there is a difference between my ability to recognize the Lord's will when saying a ten minute prayer alone to understand scripture in the morning before reading a chapter in the Book of Mormon verses me and my entire family fasting, praying, supplicating the Lord, alone and together, at home and in the temple, for an extended period of time, to know how we should proceed regarding a family decision and then counseling together.

I believe that one process is much more open to personal prejudice interfering than the other.

This seems to be an explanation for the ban, rather than a declaration of where the ban came from.  Maybe it's the same thing, but he doesn't say.  It would have been wonderful if he had explained how he knew what he was claiming to know.  

I agree though that God did not step in to correct BY.  We've already talked about why that might have been.  

But there are also cognitive limitations when it comes to groups of people. We've spoken before about group think. You don't think that could hypothetically affect decisions made by well-meaning church leaders? Sometimes group dynamics can inhibit good decision making. 

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

To be honest, i haven't really studied it.  I tend to stick with stuff that only concerns me personally.  

So in theory you believe in prophetic fallibility but in your practical experience they are infallible, correct?

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So in theory you believe in prophetic fallibility but in your practical experience they are infallible, correct?

Not exactly. 

I assume that the prophets and apostles during my time have made mistakes (misspoke, stated opinion as fact, understood a scripture wrong, etc.) but i've never tried to do any research to make a list. So I can't say that i know it's happened.  I'm sure they lose their temper when they shouldn't every now and then.  Get judgmental once in a while.  Choose a site for a temple that ends up being wrong, say someone should have a temple recommend when they really shouldn't (or maybe when they should) etc. etc.  I don't think that happens often.  I don't think that believing a prophet is fallible means they are likely to be in error or are often in error.

However, I've never had the spirit confirm to me that something they have taught has been wrong, even when I've personally wished the teaching was something different.  Without that confirmation of fallibility in regards to doctrine, i certainly can't share my experiences in that regard.  So yes, in my personal practical experience (in regard to things i've heard from them personally and prayed about for confirmation) they have been infallible.   

What has your practical experience with them been?

 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

How about death threats? 

I really don't get the question.

You live with a spiritual death threat hanging over your head every second.  Do you feel like that fact has taken away your agency?  If you knew that if you didn't get a vaccine for some horrible virus that you would die, would you feel like your agency had been taken away?

Death (spiritual and physical) is sometimes that consequence of disobedience.  As long as we still have the choice to obey or disobey, our agency remains intact regardless.

I sincerely don't understand your thinking here, sorry.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not exactly. 

I assume that the prophets and apostles during my time have made mistakes (misspoke, stated opinion as fact, understood a scripture wrong, etc.) but i've never tried to do any research to make a list. So I can't say that i know it's happened.  I'm sure they lose their temper when they shouldn't every now and then.  Get judgmental once in a while.  Choose a site for a temple that ends up being wrong, say someone should have a temple recommend when they really shouldn't (or maybe when they should) etc. etc.  I don't think that happens often.  I don't think that believing a prophet is fallible means they are likely to be in error or are often in error.

However, I've never had the spirit confirm to me that something they have taught has been wrong, even when I've personally wished the teaching was something different.  Without that confirmation of fallibility in regards to doctrine, i certainly can't share my experiences in that regard.  So yes, in my personal practical experience (in regard to things i've heard from them personally and prayed about for confirmation) they have been infallible.   

What has your practical experience with them been?

 

I don't believe that they are likely to be in error nor that they are often in error.  But, I have had confirmation on specific things that they were wrong, or at least wrong for my life.

Reading some of the gospel topics essays makes it obvious that they have been wrong in the past.  So I find it interesting when fellow LDS can't identify any errors that prophets have made.

And what I am referring to is matters of doctrine not losing their temper, being judgmental, or choosing the wrong site for a temple.

From all that you've said, you seem to be among the majority of LDS who seem to feel that while fallible in personal matters, they maintain a doctrinal inerrancy.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't believe that they are likely to be in error nor that they are often in error.  But, I have had confirmation on specific things that they were wrong, or at least wrong for my life.

Reading some of the gospel topics essays makes it obvious that they have been wrong in the past.  So I find it interesting when fellow LDS can't identify any errors that prophets have made.

And what I am referring to is matters of doctrine not losing their temper, being judgmental, or choosing the wrong site for a temple.

From all that you've said, you seem to be among the majority of LDS who seem to feel that while fallible in personal matters, they maintain a doctrinal inerrancy.

Maybe it would help to just start from the beginning.  What are the references that support a prophet being fallible?  

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Maybe it would help to just start from the beginning.  What are the references that support a prophet being fallible?  

If you want to start from the beginning, you'd have to clarify if we're going to discuss fallibility or doctrinal inerrancy.

I'm not aware of anyone arguing that the prophet is infallible in the sense that he never loses his temper, says something unkind, etc.

Doctrinal inerrancy by the prophet has been argued since President Woodruff issued the manifesto claiming the prophet can not lead the church astray, if not well before by President Brigham Young.

The easiest church published reference to argue against doctrinal inerrancy and the prophet not leading the church astray is the gospel topics essay on race and the priesthood.  That essay disavows past prophetic doctrinal teachings.  They were wrong and the prophet did lead the church and its members astray.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

I really don't get the question.

You live with a spiritual death threat hanging over your head every second.  Do you feel like that fact has taken away your agency?  If you knew that if you didn't get a vaccine for some horrible virus that you would die, would you feel like your agency had been taken away?

Death (spiritual and physical) is sometimes that consequence of disobedience.  As long as we still have the choice to obey or disobey, our agency remains intact regardless.

I sincerely don't understand your thinking here, sorry.

"Do this or die" is coercive. The traditional Christian idea of "believe or be tortured for eternity" is also coercive. However in the LDS paradigm almost no one goes to hell, so in theory it's far less coercive. Unless of course God is going to kill prophets who get it wrong - then prophets don't have agency at all. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

"Do this or die" is coercive. The traditional Christian idea of "believe or be tortured for eternity" is also coercive. However in the LDS paradigm almost no one goes to hell, so in theory it's far less coercive. Unless of course God is going to kill prophets who get it wrong - then prophets don't have agency at all. 

I don't agree with that logic.  I don't think it holds up under scrutiny.  Like i said before, I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree on it.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

If you want to start from the beginning, you'd have to clarify if we're going to discuss fallibility or doctrinal inerrancy.

I think that fallibility and errancy pretty much mean the same thing.  Fallibility means "capable of making mistakes or being erroneous" and errancy means "capable of being wrong."  So whether someone says "prophets are infallible" or "prophets are inerrant" they are essentially saying the same thing.  We don't have to worry about the semantics between those two words, so that's one less thing to debate.

Quote

 

Doctrinal inerrancy by the prophet has been argued since President Woodruff issued the manifesto claiming the prophet can not lead the church astray, if not well before by President Brigham Young.

The easiest church published reference to argue against doctrinal inerrancy and the prophet not leading the church astray is the gospel topics essay on race and the priesthood.  That essay disavows past prophetic doctrinal teachings.  They were wrong and the prophet did lead the church and its members astray.

 

I disagree that being wrong about a doctrine is the same as leading the church astray.  I'm not trying to be argumentative, I sincerely don't see them as the same thing.

But back to my question, is there nothing authoritative that we can turn to in order to understand prophets and fallibility?  In the church we often repeat the mantra of 'the prophets aren't infallible' as if it's doctrine and is obvious of what that means.  I'm wondering where that idea (that it's basically doctrine and that it means "this" and not "that") comes from.  

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't agree with that logic.  I don't think it holds up under scrutiny.  Like i said before, I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree on it.

Sure. I just don't get what "force" could possibly mean to you.

No big deal.