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

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Working with Hitler is a bit different than working with Brigham Young. 

I agree there are some things that God would like us to work through and figure out on our own. I don't think denying saving ordinances to a whole class of people is one of those things.

When we're talking about revelation as it's understood in Mormon terms, we're really talking about divine intervention. In which case the question becomes the old favorite - why does God allow evil to occur? 

Personally I don't believe that God communicates with words like we do, so it makes perfect sense that Brigham Young relied on the information that was available to him - that was, his literal reading of the POGP, which indicated to him that black people couldn't have the priesthood. 

For those who do believe that God speaks in words, I suppose the conclusion might be that for whatever reason, God is very hesitant to intervene directly or dramatically in human affairs, either with audible words or with actions.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Gray

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

That is inaccurate. Not everything has been disavowed. The general proposition that it would one day be lifted has never been disavowed. The OD does say that the long awaited day has come, after all.

BY's prophesy wasn't that "someday" it would be disavowed.  The prophesy was that it would be disavowed in the millenium (after all the sons of Adam...).  That prophesy was proven false.  So I am not sure why I would hang anything on it.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

This is the same line of reasoning I expect to eventually be applied to the revelation permitting same-sex relationships within Mormonism.

Time will definitely tell.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You haven't established that the ban was acceptable to God or that He wanted it kept in place.  Perhaps, as your second comment indicates, He felt it was necessary or unavoidable but that's different than acceptable/desired.

Of course.  I'm only going off of the evidence that we have to suggest what 'could' have happened.  However, if God says "do this" or "don't do that" then that seems like a reasonable definition of what God finds acceptable. Acceptable just means suitable, satisfactory or adequate.  

It makes no sense to say that God told McKay to keep the ban in place, but that the priesthood ban was unacceptable to God.  It doesn't seem like a logical statement to claim that God would direct His prophet to do something that was unacceptable to Him.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Of course.  I'm only going off of the evidence that we have to suggest what 'could' have happened.  However, if God says "do this" or "don't do that" then that seems like a reasonable definition of what God finds acceptable. Acceptable just means suitable, satisfactory or adequate.  

It makes no sense to say that God told McKay to keep the ban in place, but that the priesthood ban was unacceptable to God.  It doesn't seem like a logical statement to claim that God would direct His prophet to do something that was unacceptable to Him.

I thought we addressed that already.  It's possible that he knew the church or the 15 weren't ready to remove the ban.  That doesn't mean that he still wanted it in place.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So are you of the opinion that God spoke the words to David O'McKay that it was not time, or that it was more about his impressions?  I'm curious because my working hypothesis is God would not be so silly as to condone racism by the church because the members were racist.  It is far more likely in my world to think God works with people and people often don't get Him, what He's wanting from them and He is trying to convey to them/us. 

Rockpond and i already covered this earlier in the thread so i'm not going to go into it again.  I'll say that I do believe that God is capable of making sure His prophet knows His will.  A Being who declares "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same" would have to be very confident in His people's ability to trust His prophets.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I thought we addressed that already.  It's possible that he knew the church or the 15 weren't ready to remove the ban.  That doesn't mean that he still wanted it in place.

I agree.  But it does mean that the continuation of the ban was acceptable to Him.  It does not seem logical to me to state that God would tell His prophet to do something that was unacceptable to Him.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  But it does mean that the continuation of the ban was acceptable to Him.  It does not seem logical to me to state that God would tell His prophet to do something that was unacceptable to Him.

You've never had to choose between the worse of two bad options?

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Rockpond and i already covered this earlier in the thread so i'm not going to go into it again.  I'll say that I do believe that God is capable of making sure His prophet knows His will.  A Being who declares "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same" would have to be very confident in His people's ability to trust His prophets.

I think it is theologically dangerous to take that phrase entirely out of context as you appear to be doing.

[Jeanne]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

Was it not the time because God wanted it to continue or because God didn't want a schism in the quorum?

I wonder if this wouldn't have been possible for a lot of policies in discussion since then.

[bluebell]

Just now, rockpond said:

You've never had to choose between the worse of two bad options?

Of course, but we both know that God is incapable of directing people to do anything immoral or sinful. He is incapable of directing people to do something that He condemns.  He cannot sidestep His moral compass (or He would cease to be God) because His disciples are weak and flawed men.  For whatever reason, continuing the priesthood ban was a satisfactory (which is just another way to say acceptable) option for God (if we believe Pres. McKay).

God is merciful and just and perfect and without sin.  Because of those attributes we can know that there is never a time when, presented with two bad options, He would be forced to direct His prophet to the lesser of 'bad'.  God can't ever lead someone to do something bad, even if it was to a lesser degree.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think it is theologically dangerous to take that phrase entirely out of context as you appear to be doing.

I don't believe I am taking it out of context.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Of course, but we both know that God is incapable of directing people to do anything immoral or sinful. He is incapable of directing people to do something that He condemns.  He cannot sidestep His moral compass (or He would cease to be God) because His disciples are weak and flawed men.  For whatever reason, continuing the priesthood ban was a satisfactory (which is just another way to say acceptable) option for God (if we believe Pres. McKay).

God is merciful and just and perfect and without sin.  Because of those attributes we can know that there is never a time when, presented with two bad options, He would be forced to direct His prophet to the lesser of 'bad'.  God can't ever lead someone to do something bad, even if it was to a lesser degree.

These are deep philosophical and theological questions.  How does he respect agency but still have His will honored?

We don't really know exactly what transpired between the Lord and President McKay.  I don't believe for a second that God wanted that ban to ever be in place or to continue any longer than it absolutely had to.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't believe I am taking it out of context.

Of course.  The clipped phrase you used is entirely consistent with your religious views and beliefs.  It's a good fit for you.

[stemelbow]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Rockpond and i already covered this earlier in the thread so i'm not going to go into it again.  I'll say that I do believe that God is capable of making sure His prophet knows His will.  A Being who declares "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same" would have to be very confident in His people's ability to trust His prophets.

Okee dokes.  I don't see where it's covered in this thread but if it's a bother, no worries. 

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

These are deep philosophical and theological questions.  How does he respect agency but still have His will honored?

We don't really know exactly what transpired between the Lord and President McKay.  I don't believe for a second that God wanted that ban to ever be in place or to continue any longer than it absolutely had to.

The G-d Who weeps over the consequences suffered by His disobedient children but also commands, from time to time, inexplicable (to us) things is kind of hard to get your hands around, isn't He?

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

The G-d Who weeps over the consequences suffered by His disobedient children but also commands, from time to time, inexplicable (to us) things is kind of hard to get your hands around, isn't He?

Nope.  That kind of nuance is what I have learned to live with for years since my faith crisis while still staying active in the church.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

These are deep philosophical and theological questions.  How does he respect agency but still have His will honored?

We don't really know exactly what transpired between the Lord and President McKay.  I don't believe for a second that God wanted that ban to ever be in place or to continue any longer than it absolutely had to.

It'd be really problematic if God commanded His Church to preach error to the hurt and defection of many, to support some people in their errors.  Then somehow influence His Church through those who aren't of His Church to reverse ship.  Why not use His Church to influence that which is good from the beginning?  It makes no sense to say, "well because the members couldn't handle the truth" because we simply don't know whether they could or not.  We're just playing the guessing game.  And only to preserve our perception that God's preferred method is not foolproof.  

It's really confusing to me.  Much easier to just accept men can't see what God can and therefore are prone to error even when receiving and promoting His messages.   

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Nope.  That kind of nuance is what I have learned to live with for years since my faith crisis while still staying active in the church.

Good for you.

Because thing's like Laban's death at Nephi's hand, Isaac's near-death at Abraham's hand, JSJr's polygyny and other inexplicable things are hard for most people.  They're, IMNSHO, supposed to be.  Those who would be gospel grown-ups must learn to live in a world filled with nuance.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Good for you.

Because thing's like Laban's death at Nephi's hand, Isaac's near-death at Abraham's hand, JSJr's polygyny and other inexplicable things are hard for most people.  They're, IMNSHO, supposed to be.  Those who would be gospel grown-ups must learn to live in a world filled with nuance.

The reality of needed nuance in life, makes general rules seem silly.  There are so many exceptions or possible exceptions to each one, there's little point in them.  I often wonder if it's best to seek to love others and let the rule keeping or non keeping just happen.  I feel less pharisaic that way. 

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The reality of needed nuance in life, makes general rules seem silly.  There are so many exceptions or possible exceptions to each one, there's little point in them.  I often wonder if it's best to seek to love others and let the rule keeping or non keeping just happen.  I feel less pharisaic that way. 

No disagreement here.  So long as we're talking about human-generated rules and not a priori, G-d-generated rules.

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Of course.  The clipped phrase you used is entirely consistent with your religious views and beliefs.  It's a good fit for you.

I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but this comes off as very sarcastic and condescending.  Am i reading your tone wrong?

[Mystery Meat]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't believe I am taking it out of context.

Don't worry, you aren't. Some people just like to ignore inconvenient truths.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but this comes off as very sarcastic and condescending.  Am i reading your tone wrong?

Yes, you are reading my tone wrong.  I'm sorry - it was not meant to sound sarcastic or condescending.

I think that is your belief system, and that's good.  I may not understand it, but you don't understand my belief system either.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Don't worry, you aren't. Some people just like to ignore inconvenient truths.

You stand behind the idea that anything said by one of the Lord's annointed servants is the same as the Lord saying it himself?  You don't see any problems with that?