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

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree it could change.  I actually expect it will.  That doesn't mean though that the original is a mistake and future iterations are what it should always have been.   I also know that God knows about group think.  He still set His church up this way despite it.  As I said before, if we can't trust our prophets and apostles, there is no reason to have them.

I think it's already been demonstrated that church leaders can make big mistakes that go uncorrected for years (priesthood ban). Presumably despite their human flaws, church leaders still have value. Any group of human leaders will always have blind spots. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think it's already been demonstrated that church leaders can make big mistakes that go uncorrected for years (priesthood ban). Presumably despite their human flaws, church leaders still have value. Any group of human leaders will always have blind spots. 

I don't see the priesthood ban as the same.  

We don't know how the ban came about (but we do know how this stuff with SSM came about).   We have no record of the prophets and apostles saying they sought revelation as a group about why the ban was instated and that they Lord told them it was because blacks were less valiant, etc. (but we do have a record of prophets and apostles saying they sought revelation as a group for SSM issues and were told specific things).

Any group of human leaders will always have blind spots when left to their own devices and strengths.  I don't believe that's true for a group of leaders who have 1) the right to revelation from God in regards to His church and have been given the authority to receive it from God and 2) sincerely seek His will thru fasting, prayer, supplication, etc.  If we can't trust God under those circumstances to lead His church thru prophets, when can we trust Him?

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

(but we do have a record of prophets and apostles saying they sought revelation as a group for SSM issues and were told specific things)

We do?  Could you share a reference on that?

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As I said before, if we can't trust our prophets and apostles, there is no reason to have them.

But they aren't infallible, right?  Couldn't they be mistaken?  Or is this an area in which they are infallible?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We do?  Could you share a reference on that?

I did earlier in this thread.  It was a quote from Pres. Nelson.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I did earlier in this thread.  It was a quote from Pres. Nelson.

This:

Quote

This “prophetic process” — which also includes fasting, prayer, studying, pondering, counseling with each other as they wrestle with the issue — was followed in 2012 with the change in age for missionary service, as well as the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries, President Nelson said.

“Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter,” he said. “Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration.

“And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process. And so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.”

So we are to understand that the specific things they were told are the November additions to the Handbook?

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

But they aren't infallible, right?  Couldn't they be mistaken?  Or is this an area in which they are infallible?

Why do we assume that if someone is fallible, it means that God will allow them to mistakenly lead His church astray?  Is God not capable of working with fallible men and still have His will known and done when He wants it to be?   

I believe that a prophet and apostle can be fallible, and still be trustworthy to be God's spokesman to His children.  The scriptures are full of experiences of imperfect men who were still (even while being imperfect) able to know God's will and do what He wanted done and teach what He wanted taught.  I don't believe man's weaknesses and imperfections can hold God's church hostage in error if His will is sincerely and consistently being sought by those with authority to lead.

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why do we assume that if someone is fallible, it means that God will allow them to mistakenly lead His church astray?  Is God not capable of working with fallible men and still have His will known and done when He wants it to be?   

I believe that a prophet and apostle can be fallible, and still be trustworthy to be God's spokesman to His children.  The scriptures are full of experiences of imperfect men who were still (even while being imperfect) able to know God's will and do what He wanted done and teach what He wanted taught.  I don't believe man's weaknesses and imperfections can hold God's church hostage in error if His will is sincerely and consistently being sought by those with authority to lead.

 

I didn't make such an assumption.

It's an honest question (wasn't meant to be snarky) and something that I have struggled with for years.  The point you've been making in this thread is that they must be correct about SSM.  That we can trust them to have that right.  And yet, they've been wrong before even with respect to things as important as marriage and saving ordinances.  Why do I have to trust that they are correct this time?

What you seem to be saying here is the position that our prophets and apostles are fallible as humans but lead the church with doctrinal inerrancy.  You've also now added that past mistakes were paths that the Lord must have wanted us to take.  That seems to lead to the possibility that all they've taught on homosexuality could also be a mistake but is the path the Lord currently wants us on. 

Why would I want to follow down that path if it is a mistake?  Why would I want to be a part of all the heartache it causes?

 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This:

So we are to understand that the specific things they were told are the November additions to the Handbook?

That's what he seems to be saying, yes. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's what he seems to be saying, yes. 

So after decades of our church struggling with the issue of homosexuality, the 15 receive a revelation on the matter and it tells us 1) not baptize children of gay couples, 2) excommunicate any gay couple that makes a legal marriage commitment to one another, and 3) publish it in a handbook that is available to only a small percentage of church members?

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I didn't make such an assumption.

It's an honest question (wasn't meant to be snarky) and something that I have struggled with for years.  The point you've been making in this thread is that they must be correct about SSM.  That we can trust them to have that right.  And yet, they've been wrong before even with respect to things as important as marriage and saving ordinances.  Why do I have to trust that they are correct this time?

What you seem to be saying here is the position that our prophets and apostles are fallible as humans but lead the church with doctrinal inerrancy.  You've also now added that past mistakes were paths that the Lord must have wanted us to take.  That seems to lead to the possibility that all they've taught on homosexuality could also be a mistake but is the path the Lord currently wants us on. 

Why would I want to follow down that path if it is a mistake?  Why would I want to be a part of all the heartache it causes?

 

I can't answer that question for you (also not being snarky). 

It's similar to "why would you belong to a church lead by prophets that are just as likely to lead God's church right as they are to lead it wrong."

Or, "what's the point of prophets if we can't trust them?"

And one of the hardest "How do I sustain someone as a prophet of God when I believe they aren't doing God's will but are leading His church astray?"

The doctrine of prophets sounds simple in theory but in practice it's really not. I guess we all have to do our best to figure out what God wants us to do with our fallible prophets. 

[Gray]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't see the priesthood ban as the same.  

We don't know how the ban came about (but we do know how this stuff with SSM came about).   We have no record of the prophets and apostles saying they sought revelation as a group about why the ban was instated and that they Lord told them it was because blacks were less valiant, etc. (but we do have a record of prophets and apostles saying they sought revelation as a group for SSM issues and were told specific things).

Any group of human leaders will always have blind spots when left to their own devices and strengths.  I don't believe that's true for a group of leaders who have 1) the right to revelation from God in regards to His church and have been given the authority to receive it from God and 2) sincerely seek His will thru fasting, prayer, supplication, etc.  If we can't trust God under those circumstances to lead His church thru prophets, when can we trust Him?

 

We don't have any official narrative around how the ban on children with gay parents came about. We have one off the cuff statement claiming it was some kind of revelation, but of course common consent was sidestepped, so I wonder what is meant by "revelation". 

There really is very little clarity on how this came about. Lots of rumor and speculation though. 

Do you think God will violate the agency of leaders of the church and FORCE them to get things right?

 

Edited May 24, 2016 by Gray

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

We don't have any official narrative around how the ban on children with gay parents came about. We have one off the cuff statement claiming it was some kind of revelation, but of course common consent was sidestepped, so I wonder what is meant by "revelation". 

There really is very little clarity on how this came about. Lots of rumor and speculation though. 

 

Additionally we do have record of leaders suggesting the ban and it's explanation were had by revelation.  It's hard for me to fathom that the claim of revelation by called leaders is the whole caveat that determines whether something is true or not, though.  If people are fallible....I don't see the distinction as meaningful here, and far less meaningful if the claimed distinction is no distinction at all. 

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

We don't have any official narrative around how the ban on children with gay parents came about. We have one off the cuff statement claiming it was some kind of revelation, but of course common consent was sidestepped, so I wonder what is meant by "revelation". 

There really is very little clarity on how this came about. Lots of rumor and speculation though. 

Do you think God will violate the agency of leaders of the church and FORCE them to get things right?

 

When one of the apostles says "this is how it came about" does it make sense to call it rumor and speculation?

To answer your question, I don't think God would have to force them. I think He is able to correct people who sincerely seek His will thru fasting, prayer, and the use of the Holy Ghost without having to use force. 

And if His prophet and apostles chose evil, and stopped sincerely seeking his will in that regard, I believe He would remove them rather than allow the church to apostasize because they trusted Him when He said that whether it was His voice or the voice of His prophets it was the same. 

[Jeanne]

It is hard for me to comprehend at this time in my life that one could could commit their time, talents and dollars..and their lives..to follow men who are capable of mistakes.  I mean everybody makes mistakes, but you have been told and your children have been told to follow the Prophet..he will not lead you astray.  You pray, follow the spirit..you may disagree..but heaven's for bid if you voice that.  What is there to follow?

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And if His prophet and apostles chose evil, and stopped sincerely seeking his will in that regard, I believe He would remove them rather than allow the church to apostasize because they trusted Him when He said that whether it was His voice or the voice of His prophets it was the same. 

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

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I can't answer that question for you (also not being snarky). 

It's similar to "why would you belong to a church lead by prophets that are just as likely to lead God's church right as they are to lead it wrong."

Or, "what's the point of prophets if we can't trust them?"

And one of the hardest "How do I sustain someone as a prophet of God when I believe they aren't doing God's will but are leading His church astray?"

The doctrine of prophets sounds simple in theory but in practice it's really not. I guess we all have to do our best to figure out what God wants us to do with our fallible prophets. 

A fair answer.  And I agree.

[Gray]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When one of the apostles says "this is how it came about" does it make sense to call it rumor and speculation?

What I mean is there is more rumor and speculation than there is actual information

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

To answer your question, I don't think God would have to force them. I think He is able to correct people who sincerely seek His will thru fasting, prayer, and the use of the Holy Ghost without having to use force. 

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

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And if His prophet and apostles chose evil, and stopped sincerely seeking his will in that regard, I believe He would remove them rather than allow the church to apostasize because they trusted Him when He said that whether it was His voice or the voice of His prophets it was the same. 

More force? Where does agency come in?

[rodheadlee]

9 hours ago, ALarson said:

I doubt this is true.  Do you have other stats that back this up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California#Religion These are from 2014. I posted them.

These are the stats Cinepro posted http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics/country/united-states/state/california which are current? Mine say 539,575.

His say 773,762. So you can do the percentage stats yourself.

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California#Religion These are from 2014. I posted them.

These are the stats Cinepro posted http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics/country/united-states/state/california which are current? Mine say 539,575.

His say 773,762. So you can do the percentage stats yourself.

That's not a 100% growth.

You stated this:

Quote

"Also, the stats Cinepro quoted and I quoted shows that the Church has grown 100% in California since 2014 despite their involvement in Prop 8."

 

[rodheadlee]

13 hours ago, ALarson said:

That's not a 100% growth.

You stated this:

 

Well duh, My position is the Church had no influence on the California population. I just compared Cinepro's stats which said 2% and mine said 1%.  Which is it? Little influence and little growth or big influence and little growth? I don't buy big influence and little growth. So what can we take away from these stats? They are inaccurate? Or the California population has shrunk?

Edited May 25, 2016 by rodheadlee
snark removal.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California#Religion These are from 2014. I posted them.

These are the stats Cinepro posted http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics/country/united-states/state/california which are current? Mine say 539,575.

His say 773,762. So you can do the percentage stats yourself.

Something is wrong with those numbers:  The church only grew by 261,862 from 2014 to 2015.  I doubt that the state of California accounted for NEARLY ALL of the global church's growth.

ETA:  That wikipedia link says that there were 529,575 LDS members in CA in the year 2000.

Edited May 25, 2016 by rockpond

[carbon dioxide]

11 hours ago, Jeanne said:

It is hard for me to comprehend at this time in my life that one could could commit their time, talents and dollars..and their lives..to follow men who are capable of mistakes.  I mean everybody makes mistakes, but you have been told and your children have been told to follow the Prophet..he will not lead you astray.  You pray, follow the spirit..you may disagree..but heaven's for bid if you voice that.  What is there to follow?

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.

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Well duh, My position is the Church had no influence on the California population. I just compared Cinepro's stats which said 2% and mine said 1%. You apostates are never happy Which is it? Little influence and little growth or big influence and little growth? I don't buy big influence and little growth. So what can we take away from these stats? They are inaccurate? Or the California population has shrunk?

Who are you calling an apostate here?  If you're referring to me, I'm a fully active, temple recommend holding member.  

I'm not sure why you're being so snarky.  I was just pointing out that what you stated isn't accurate using the stats you quoted (which turn out to be wrong as well, according to rockpond).  The church membership in California has not grown 100% since 2014. 

 

Edited May 25, 2016 by ALarson

[rodheadlee]

50 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Who are you calling an apostate here?  If you're referring to me, I'm a fully active, temple recommend holding member.  

I'm not sure why you're being so snarky.  I was just pointing out that what you stated isn't accurate using the stats you quoted (which turn out to be wrong as well, according to rockpond).  The church membership in California has not grown 100% since 2014. 

 

Yeah sorry for being snarky. I edited the post. I fully agree the LDS population has not doubled but in fact numbers can be shown to produce anything you want them to say as 2% is obviously double 1%. so some rounding up and down is going on here. I repeat, my position is the Church had little efffect on the general population of California by supporting Prop 8. Which is the point of this thread and what I said in my first post.