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

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

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.  

Yes, fallibility and errancy are close in definition.  That's why I referred to "doctrinal errancy".

I don't have a specific reference but I believe our theology (that Christ was the only perfect mortal) demands that our prophets be viewed as fallible.  I provided a reference for what I'm calling doctrinal inerrancy:  President Woodruff's Manifesto, now canonized as OD1.  

If the prophet teaching incorrect doctrine isn't leading that church astray, than what is "leading the church astray"?

[bluebell]

21 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't have a specific reference but I believe our theology (that Christ was the only perfect mortal) demands that our prophets be viewed as fallible.

I agree, but only to a point.  To assume or believe that prophets can lead Christ's church astray because they aren't perfect seems like assuming or believing that Christ is incapable of revealing His will to His prophets in a way that they, if they sincerely seek to, can understand Him.

That's the part i disagree with.  I don't think that the imperfections of prophets can hold Christ's church hostage.

Quote

I provided a reference for what I'm calling doctrinal inerrancy:  President Woodruff's Manifesto, now canonized as OD1.   the prophet teaching incorrect doctrine isn't leading that church astray, than what is "leading the church astray"?

I don't believe that being wrong about a doctrine means the church has gone astray.   I'm trying to think of an analogy that will help explain what I mean.  Hmmmm.....  

There have been times (more than I like) where my kids have been taught some 'fact' in school that isn't correct.  They've been tested on it and it's been ingrained into them, but it's actually wrong.  Sometimes the mistake is corrected the next year by a new teacher and sometimes it takes a way (i was in college before some of my 'wrong teachings' were corrected).  But that wrong teaching doesn't lead my child's education astray.  They are still chugging along in the right direction, on the right path, headed for graduation just like they would be without the error, even if it's not with completely right information.   

It's not a great analogy but i hope it helps explain a little better what I mean by not believing that errors in doctrine automatically mean the church has gone astray.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I agree, but only to a point.  To assume or believe that prophets can lead Christ's church astray because they aren't perfect seems like assuming or believing that Christ is incapable of revealing His will to His prophets in a way that they, if they sincerely seek to, can understand Him.

That's the part i disagree with.  I don't think that the imperfections of prophets can hold Christ's church hostage.

I don't believe that being wrong about a doctrine means the church has gone astray.   I'm trying to think of an analogy that will help explain what I mean.  Hmmmm.....  

There have been times (more than I like) where my kids have been taught some 'fact' in school that isn't correct.  They've been tested on it and it's been ingrained into them, but it's actually wrong.  Sometimes the mistake is corrected the next year by a new teacher and sometimes it takes a way (i was in college before some of my 'wrong teachings' were corrected).  But that wrong teaching doesn't lead my child's education astray.  They are still chugging along in the right direction, on the right path, headed for graduation just like they would be without the error, even if it's not with completely right information.   

It's not a great analogy but i hope it helps explain a little better what I mean by not believing that errors in doctrine automatically mean the church has gone astray.

I wasn't saying that the imperfections of our mortal prophets hold the church hostage.  So I think we're in agreement there.

So if teaching incorrect doctrine isn't leading the church astray.  Than what would qualify as leading the church astray?

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wasn't saying that the imperfections of our mortal prophets hold the church hostage.  So I think we're in agreement there.

So if teaching incorrect doctrine isn't leading the church astray.  Than what would qualify as leading the church astray?

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about imperfections either. I'm talking about fallibility. I don't believe that a prophet's fallibility can hold the church hostage. 

I think that leading the church astray is essentially taking it in a direction that is not God's will. Changing its course from the right course to the wrong course.  Leaving the path that leads to the intended destination and following a different path.

 

 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about imperfections either. I'm talking about fallibility. I don't believe that a prophet's fallibility can hold the church hostage. 

I think that leading the church astray is essentially taking it in a direction that is not God's will. Changing its course from the right course to the wrong course.  Leaving the path that leads to the intended destination and following a different path.

 

 

Again, I agree: prophetic imperfections/fallibility/errancy all similar, and cannot hold the church hostage.

So if teaching incorrect doctrine is not taking the church in a direction that is not God's will, it's not taking it in a different path.  Than what would qualify as a different path or a direction that is not God's?  What could that possibly look like?  Based on your answers, I'm assuming you would say that it hasn't happened in this dispensation, right?

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Again, I agree: prophetic imperfections/fallibility/errancy all similar, and cannot hold the church hostage.

So if teaching incorrect doctrine is not taking the church in a direction that is not God's will, it's not taking it in a different path.  Than what would qualify as a different path or a direction that is not God's?  What could that possibly look like?  Based on your answers, I'm assuming you would say that it hasn't happened in this dispensation, right?

I don't know what it would look like.  Maybe like apostasy.  And no, i don't believe any prophet has led the church astray, even if they haven't been doctrinally infallible.

[Jeanne]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know what it would look like.  Maybe like apostasy.  And no, i don't believe any prophet has led the church astray, even if they haven't been doctrinal infallible.

What about BY?  He was basically a good and intelligent man and prophet.  Setting up Utah the way he did was brilliant; but some of his doctrine just didn't ring right with what I think God or even JS taught.  What do you think?  If there was ever a prophet that might be in error, I would say BY came close.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

What about BY?  He was basically a good and intelligent man and prophet.  Setting up Utah the way he did was brilliant; but some of his doctrine just didn't ring right with what I think God or even JS taught.  What do you think?  If there was ever a prophet that might be in error, I would say BY came close.

I definitely think he got some things wrong.

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know what it would look like.  Maybe like apostasy.  And no, i don't believe any prophet has led the church astray, even if they haven't been doctrinally infallible.

So would it be correct to summarize your position as:  Prophets can teach incorrect doctrine to the church but that does not amount to leading the church astray.  If they led the church astray they would be removed from their position (presumably through death).  But you don't really believe that they ever have led the church astray nor do you anticipate it ever happening.  For you, leading the church astray means that they take it down a path that is not in accordance with God's will but how would you know that the path isn't God's will?

If a prophet taught a principle that led to his untimely death, didn't align well with scripture, hurt the church, and subsequent prophets reversed that principle, could that be considered leading the church astray?

 

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If a prophet taught a principle that led to his untimely death, didn't align well with scripture, hurt the church, and subsequent prophets reversed that principle, could that be considered leading the church astray?

Edited May 27, 2016 by bluebell
It won't let me type under the quote box but my reply was "maybe".

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/25/2016 at 10:21 AM, Gray said:

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. 

What evidence to you have that it could not have come from God?  

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

If a prophet taught a principle that led to his untimely death, didn't align well with scripture, hurt the church, and subsequent prophets reversed that principle, could that be considered leading the church astray?

 

I don't think so.  Not every doctrine or principle are equal.  If the prophet said "Joseph Smith was a fraud" or "The Book of Mormon is false" or "We can now commit adultery.  The Lord is ok with it" that would be leading the church astray as that is a fundamental shift away from foundation of which the church is built on or telling members to commit sin and it is ok.  If the prophet is wrong about something more mundane like say "Family Home Evening" what is the big deal?  Also people die all the time in "untimely" ways.  One should not assume that if a prophet dies an untimely death that it means he lead the church astray.  What does it mean to "hurt the church".  Hurt it in what way and who decides.  Some might say the Church position on gay marriage has hurt the Church.  Others might say that that it has not hurt the church.  Sometimes standing for what is right will mean one will not be popular.  

[rockpond]

On 5/27/2016 at 9:50 PM, carbon dioxide said:

I don't think so.  Not every doctrine or principle are equal.  If the prophet said "Joseph Smith was a fraud" or "The Book of Mormon is false" or "We can now commit adultery.  The Lord is ok with it" that would be leading the church astray as that is a fundamental shift away from foundation of which the church is built on or telling members to commit sin and it is ok.  If the prophet is wrong about something more mundane like say "Family Home Evening" what is the big deal?  Also people die all the time in "untimely" ways.  One should not assume that if a prophet dies an untimely death that it means he lead the church astray.  What does it mean to "hurt the church".  Hurt it in what way and who decides.  Some might say the Church position on gay marriage has hurt the Church.  Others might say that that it has not hurt the church.  Sometimes standing for what is right will mean one will not be popular.  

Bold added by me.

So could changing the nature of marriage (assuming it wasn't what God wanted) could be considered leading the church astray?

[Gray]

On 5/27/2016 at 10:31 PM, carbon dioxide said:

What evidence to you have that it could not have come from God?  

There is no evidence either way. But I don't find an immoral God to be very believable or compelling. If we must assign immorality to a power beyond our own, Satan is the usual target. 

Edited June 1, 2016 by Gray

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 5/27/2016 at 2:40 PM, rockpond said:

So would it be correct to summarize your position as:  Prophets can teach incorrect doctrine to the church but that does not amount to leading the church astray.  If they led the church astray they would be removed from their position (presumably through death).  But you don't really believe that they ever have led the church astray nor do you anticipate it ever happening.  For you, leading the church astray means that they take it down a path that is not in accordance with God's will but how would you know that the path isn't God's will?

If a prophet taught a principle that led to his untimely death, didn't align well with scripture, hurt the church, and subsequent prophets reversed that principle, could that be considered leading the church astray?

 

You mean like Joseph Smith's polygamy?

[thesometimesaint]

On 5/19/2016 at 9:26 PM, rodheadlee said:

Y'all got the thread closed while I was at work. I said "I live in California, I was born in California so I have a lot of experience with Californians. No one I knew at the time was Mormon, I was in between wards and inactive and getting ready to sail to the Marquesas Islands. Everyone I knew  voted Yes on Prop 8. So your vivd imagination is telling you something that is not true and was never true. The Church had a minor affect on Prop 8. This is not the Wasatch Front the Church has about zero influence here.To tell yourself otherwise is pure vanity."

 

Mtomm said "So let's see, you weren't going to church, were between wards and busy getting ready to leave and yet you feel you can  say that the Church only had a minor influence. Okay.  Well, I live in Idaho and I'm currently active and was active in church at the time of Prop 8. Our bishop came into our Relief Society meeting to ask us to help man phone banks at a local university to call California voters.   So my vivid real life experience tells me that the Church tried very, very hard to to influence the vote on Prop 8.  To pretend otherwise is pure vanity"

This precisely my point.Mtomm. Mormons were influenced by their religion, non Mormons were not influenced by the LDS religion. The population on the Mormon Front, Wasatch Front or whatever you want to call it runs around 60%, probably greater in Idaho. Non Mormons in California could give a tinkers damn about what our Church says and the California LDS population is 1  percent according to wikipedia, 32% Protestant, and 28% Roman Catholic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California#Religion , as well as 27% atheist.

As you can see we are VASTLY out numbered by other religions who think we worship a different God, a different Jesus Christ, who mostly think we are going to Hell. It is vain to think we have influence over these people. They voted their own conscience which happens to align with ours.

 

Less influence as our critics would claim, and more than our friends would claim. 

[rockpond]

 

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You mean like Joseph Smith's polygamy?

It does seem to fit all the parameters.

On 5/27/2016 at 2:59 PM, bluebell said:

It won't let me type under the quote box but my reply was "maybe". 

So there we have a possible example of how the prophet may have led the church astray.

[rockpond]

And now it moves to Mexico...

http://kutv.com/news/local/defeated-in-the-us-lds-church-takes-fight-against-same-sex-marriage-to-mexico

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And now it moves to Mexico...

http://kutv.com/news/local/defeated-in-the-us-lds-church-takes-fight-against-same-sex-marriage-to-mexico

When I was still serving in the bishopric (so more than 2.5 years ago), we also had something similar here, though tailored to our specific political situation, in connection with legislation that was then being debated in parliament. We had a letter from the First Presidency that we read out in RS, HPG, and EQ that encouraged members to contact their MPs and express their support for the defence of marriage, and as a bishopric we also prepared a handout that summarised the letter. I'm not sure how much influence the tiny percentage of Saints here may have had, but thankfully the legislation died in debate.

Then last year we were invited to join with a coalition of other faith groups that was again petitioning parliament. I got up early one morning and volunteered to help unload bouquets of flowers that were delivered to parliament, each with a note from a sponsor to either the prime minister or a specific MP. It was heartening to see dozens of delivery vans queuing up with their cargo of tens of thousands of bouquets that morning.

I am grateful that the Church seems oblivious to the suggestion that, in the words of the headline writer, the doctrine of Christ regarding marriage has been universally defeated.

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

When I was still serving in the bishopric (so more than 2.5 years ago), we also had something similar here, though tailored to our specific political situation, in connection with legislation that was then being debated in parliament. We had a letter from the First Presidency that we read out in RS, HPG, and EQ that encouraged members to contact their MPs and express their support for the defence of marriage, and as a bishopric we also prepared a handout that summarised the letter. I'm not sure how much influence the tiny percentage of Saints here may have had, but thankfully the legislation died in debate.

Then last year we were invited to join with a coalition of other faith groups that was again petitioning parliament. I got up early one morning and volunteered to help unload bouquets of flowers that were delivered to parliament, each with a note from a sponsor to either the prime minister or a specific MP. It was heartening to see dozens of delivery vans queuing up with their cargo of tens of thousands of bouquets that morning.

I am grateful that the Church seems oblivious to the suggestion that, in the words of the headline writer, the doctrine of Christ regarding marriage has been universally defeated.

That's not what the headline says. 

 

It is so sad to me that the church continues to use its time, energy, and waning influence in an effort to deny rights to a minority.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That's not what the headline says. 

It is certainly what the headline implies by choosing to couch the Church's efforts in Mexico within the context of having been 'defeated in the US'. Why else does what's happened in America have any logical connection to the content of the story? The reality, of course, is that even with same-sex 'marriage' having been imposed on the entirety of America's large population (the world's third largest), 88.5% of the world's people continue to live in nations where marriage has not yet been redefined out of any meaningful existence, and so the 'fight' is still very much worthwhile and must be ongoing.

Quote

It is so sad to me that the church continues to use its time, energy, and waning influence ...

I understand that you really want this to be the case on this issue, but this is nothing more than another variation of the tactic employed by the headline writer ... and by a number of persons in the scriptures:

Quote

But it came to pass, that when Sanballat heard that we builded the wall, he was wroth, and took great indignation, and mocked the Jews.

 And he spake before his brethren and the army of Samaria, and said, What do these feeble Jews? ...

 Now Tobiah the Ammonite was by him, and he said, Even that which they build, if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stone wall.

 

Edited June 2, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

And now it moves to Mexico...

http://kutv.com/news/local/defeated-in-the-us-lds-church-takes-fight-against-same-sex-marriage-to-mexico

Gay marriage is like a great stone carved from the mountain and will roll forth in these latter days until all men and women will have the right to live who and how they may  All will find the joy and companionship unhindered by religious prejudice and bigotry  from The of imperfect men blinded by their own prejudices and bigotry. Love will ring from every chime from every mountaintop, from every town village and city. No unhallow hand can stop it until it fills the earth with love and joy for all mankind. Love will overcome prejudices 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It is certainly what the headline implies by choosing to couch the Church's efforts in Mexico within the context of having been 'defeated in the US'. Why else does what's happened in America have any logical connection to the content of the story? The reality, of course, is that even with same-sex 'marriage' having been imposed on the entirety of America's large population (the world's third largest), 88.5% of the world's people continue to live in nations where marriage has not yet been redefined out of any meaningful existence, and so the 'fight' is still very much worthwhile and must be ongoing.

I understand that you really want this to be the case on this issue, but this is nothing more than another variation of the tactic employed by the headline.

The church's efforts to prevent legal recognition of same-sex marriage in the US have been defeated.  What part of that factual statement do you disagree with?

The church's doctrine of marriage between man and woman being ordained of God is still alive and strong.  Everywhere. 

My statement wasn't about what "I want", it was in regards to the reality of what is happening.  The Church's waning influence is evidenced in our decreased conversion rates, leadership struggle to control the narrative, and inability to keep an organization that we heavily support (BSA) in line with our institutional objectives.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That's not what the headline says. 

 

It is so sad to me that the church continues to use its time, energy, and waning influence in an effort to deny rights to a minority.  

Unless the Church leaders are willing to allow the Church to appear callous and indifferent with regard to the safety and the welfare of the world, they have no choice but to put up some sort of fight in defense of the traditional family. At the end of the Family Proclaimation we read the following:

"WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

If the Church leaders really believe the disintegration of the traditional father/mother family will precipitate the calamitous judgments of God that will cause untold human misery, massive death and cataclysmic  destruction, there is no choice but for the Church to make a defense of the traditional family. If the Church does not take a stand in defense of the traditional family, and the judgments of God are then poured out on the world, those so judged will demand to know why, if the LDS Church knew such calamities were absolutely going to happen, did the members just passively stand by and allow physical and spiritual death to engulf the world without making any effort to prevent such a massive tragedy. And please note that it would also be most displeasing to God if he revealed to the Church that the world stood in such mortal jeopardy but then the members just passively sat back and indifferently watched the foretold massive tragedy happen.

When  the day of the final judgment arrives, those who now think it's unjust and lacking in compassion for the Church to fight against the legalization and social acceptance of gay marriage will be able to look back with 20/20 hindsight and see it was the Church leaders who were the compassionate ones and that with love they only tried to warn the world of its mortal error and its consequential destruction. I, for one, have a sure knowledge that the devil and his earthly agents want to utterly destroy the family and the eternal role of gende. And I also know for a surety that the effort to bring acceptance to gay marriage is only one of the first steps in his planned destruction of the world.

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The church's efforts to prevent legal recognition of same-sex marriage in the US have been defeated.  What part of that factual statement do you disagree with?

Absolutely nothing. But what bearing does the 'defeat' of the Church's efforts in the US have on the report out of Mexico?

And do you sincerely wish to assert that 'factual statements' carry no implications? Imagine for a moment if the headline writer had instead composed the following: 'Victorious where Hamba Tuhan lives, LDS Church takes fight against same-sex marriage to Mexico'. That's another factual statement. Would you like to argue that it doesn't alter the context and therefore the 'feel' of the headline?

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

My statement wasn't about what "I want", it was in regards to the reality of what is happening.  The Church's waning influence is evidenced in our decreased conversion rates, leadership struggle to control the narrative, and inability to keep an organization that we heavily support (BSA) in line with our institutional objectives.

I see. Would you sincerely prefer that the Church had been successful in defeating same-sex 'marriage' in America. Do you honestly want the Church to be strong enough to help defeat it in Mexico? Do you truly wish that the Church's influence were 'waxing'?