Future of the church

[Gray]

On 5/24/2016 at 9:07 AM, JLHPROF said:

Agreed with most of what you wrote except this.  There is only one path.

There is only one path, but that path isn't an institution. 

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

There is only one path, but that path isn't an institution.

Not the institution itself, but the authority and ordinances held within that organization.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My take is that earlier efforts to ascertain the will of the Lord regarding ending the priesthood restriction resulted in a collective stupor of thought among the Brethren. Latter-day Saints are taught to interpret a stupor of thought as a "no."

A wise observation.  However, it may say more about the general membership and their lack of readiness for change -- which hamstrung the Brethren.

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not the institution itself, but the authority and ordinances held within that organization.

 

Which suggests that many who will find themselves exalted were never LDS during their lives at all.  It may make our earthly joining the Church less meaningful in eternity.  It's too bad we often don't see it that way as members though--instead we often view ourselves as the most blessed like those at Rameumptum. 

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A wise observation.  However, it may say more about the general membership and their lack of readiness for change -- which hamstrung the Brethren.

It could also say far more about revelation and process of it in the Church.  It is not foolproof and we, compared to God, are nothing but fools.  That is it may mean if stupor of thought it wasn't God's doing, maybe He was trying to break through Himself and say, "Hey kids, there was never a need for the ban in the first place.  No need to ask me about this."  After all there's no indication that the ban was put into place because of revelation. 

Edited June 6, 2016 by stemelbow

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not the institution itself, but the authority and ordinances held within that organization.

 

Disagree. Those are just symbols for something else. 

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A wise observation.  However, it may say more about the general membership and their lack of readiness for change -- which hamstrung the Brethren.

I believe that the leaders have made it as clear as they feel they are able that they disavow the priesthood ban itself. It is certainly no longer taught that the ban was inspired. The doctrine of the church must be taught frequently and by many, otherwise it is no longer doctrinal. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

It is you and Scott who won't give him a break.  Why change his words, do you ever stop and think that it might be what he felt in his heart?

By considering the quote in context (and quite clear context at that), we are giving him a break and ascertaining what was in his heart. Putting a non-contextual interpretation on a statement is at best careless and misguided. Doubling down on the false interpretation, once you have been corrected, amounts to bearing false witness.

 

Edited June 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is also a false perception. The Gospel topics essay does not disavow the ban itself, only the conjectural, speculative reasons for it that had been floated over the years.

So officially sanctioned teaching from the First Presidency (think 1949 First Presidency Statement) is "only the conjectural, speculative reasons...that had been floated over the years"? 

When the '49 statement affirmatively quotes BY's statement from many decades before, I wonder if they too thought it conjectural, speculative reasoning.

""Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

That's stated definitely not as conjecture, no?  There's no two ways about it in this statement.

I think you and I have been over this before, but since you are promoting your position it seem fair to put on record the opposing position. 

It feels like the best approach to this whole thing is to accept that revelation is not foolproof.  that men leading this Church have erred, even when it comes to revelation or conveying revelatory messages from God. 

 

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By considering the quote in context (and quite clear context at that), we are giving him a break and ascertaining what was in his heart. Putting a non-contextual interpretation on a statement is at best careless and misguided. Doubling down on the false interpretation, once you have been corrected, amounts to bearing false witness.

 

I am not bearing false witness.  Where is it that I have?  You treat me like a child, such authority I guess I do not have, such as yourself.  IMO, he could have left the "I think it is not doctrinal", and it would have been fine, the question is why he put that in.  I think it came from the heart.  Not thought out.

"I condemn it [polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Did_President_Gordon_B._Hinckley_state_that_polygamy_was_not_doctrinal

Edited June 6, 2016 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I am not bearing false witness.  Where is it that I have?  You treat me like a child, such authority I guess I do not have, such as yourself.  IMO, he could have left the "I think it is not doctrinal", and it would have been fine, the question is why he put that in.  I think it came from the heart.  Not thought out.

"I condemn it [polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Did_President_Gordon_B._Hinckley_state_that_polygamy_was_not_doctrinal

You are not, Tacenda.  I think Scott will back down on this, or say that's not what he meant.  It's kind of sad when disagreements turn into personal attacks though.  That's not cool. 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I am not bearing false witness.  Where is it that I have?  

You already have the answer to this. By doubling down on your out-of-context interpretation of a statement by President Hinckley after you have been corrected.

Quote

You treat me like a child, such authority I guess I do not have, such as yourself.

I'm only responding to your utterly wrong-headed assertions. I would be inclined to do the same with anyone, adult or child.

 

Quote

IMO, he could have left the "I think it is not doctrinal", and it would have been fine, the question is why he put that in.  I think it came from the heart.  Not thought out.

For some reason, you seem to steadfastly resist getting the point. His statement, in the context of the questions that were put to him, pertained to polygamy as it is today practiced by apostate off-shoot groups from Mormonism. It was not referring to plural marriage as it was taught by Joseph Smith and practiced by the Latter-day Saints pre-Manifesto.

 

Quote

 

"I condemn it [polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Did_President_Gordon_B._Hinckley_state_that_polygamy_was_not_doctrinal

 

I thank you for including the FairMormon link but ask that when you quote the statement, you include the context, including the question(s) to which President Hinckley was responding.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You are not, Tacenda.  I think Scott will back down on this, or say that's not what he meant.  It's kind of sad when disagreements turn into personal attacks though.  That's not cool. 

Please don't presume to respond for me when you obviously have no clear understanding of my position.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

In the interest of providing the context that Tacenda and others seem determined to ignore, here is a transcription of the portion of the Larry King interview with President Hinckley. As can be seen, the context of President Hinckley's statement that has been quoted here -- including the questions that were put to him by the interviewer -- is clearly polygamy that is being practiced illegally today by apostate and off-shoot groups from Mormonism, not the principle of plural marriage that was taught by Joseph Smith and practiced by the Latteer-day Saints prior to the Manifesto:

Quote

 

Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah -- before we get back to morals and morals, is -- the big story, if you don't know it, is polygamy in Utah; there's been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson -- is the governor -- of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.

Larry King: You could have a certain amount of...

Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.

Larry King: But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?

Gordon B. Hinckley: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.

Larry King: Are you surprised that there's, apparently, a lot of polygamy in Utah?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I have seen the thing grow somewhat. I don't know how much it is. I don't know how pervasive it is.

Larry King: Should there be arrests?

Gordon B. Hinckley: It's matter of civil procedure. The church can't do anything. We have no authority in this matter, none whatever.

Larry King: Would you like to see the state to clamp down on it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I think I leave that entirely in the hands of the civil officers. It's a civil offense. It's in violation of the law. We have nothing to do with it. We're totally distanced from it. And if the state chooses to move on it, that's a responsibility of civil officers.

Larry King: President Hinckley, when the press pays attention to it, it does affect you, certainly, in a public relations sense?

Gordon B. Hinckley: It does, because people mistakenly assume that this church has something to do with it. It has nothing whatever to do with it. It has had nothing to do with it for a very long time. It's outside the realm of our responsibility. These people are not members. Any man or woman who becomes involved in it is excommunicated from the church.

Larry King: Prosecutors in Utah are quoted as saying -- they told "The Salt Lake Tribune" -- that it's difficult to prosecute polygamists because of a lack of evidence; that ex-wives and daughters rarely complain about it. Do you see that as a problem?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Well, it's secretive. There's a certain element of secretiveness about it. I suppose they have some difficulty -- they say they do, in gathering evidence.

Larry King: Should the church be more forceful in speaking out? I mean, you're forceful here tonight, but maybe -- they've been saying that it's rather than just a state matter, encouraging the state to prosecute.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don't know. We'll consider it.

Larry King: I'm giving you an idea.

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.

Larry King: Would you look better if you were...

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don't know that we would or not. As far as I'm concerned, I have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the civil officers of the state.

Larry King: You condemn it.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

On May 24, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually the essay seeks to harmonize variant opinions, and glosses over the fact that Pres McKay wanted to end the ban outright.  Only after objection from Pres of the Twelve Joseph Fielding Smith did Pres McKay attempt to find another way.  He was not about to run roughshod over his long-time friend and colleague, Pres Smith -- always seeking unanimity in decision-making.  Thus he sought the will of the Lord in prayer, but was not as successful as Pres Kimball would later be.

There are various opinions as to why that was so:  Did the Lord not consider the Mormon people quite ready for the change?  What other possible reasons might there be for waiting until 1978?  Both Jan Shipps and Elder LeGrand Richards independently gave the same immediate reason for seeking the 1978 revelation -- completion of a temple in Brazil was pending, and it was not clear how the high percentage of Afro-Brazilians would be able to deal with the need for priesthood and temple recommends.  Purely as a practical matter, how would one screen for racial purity?  Since revelation typically comes when needed, and not before, it may have been as simple as that.  But, who knows the mind and will of the Lord in such matters?

In my opinion, neither the Church nor the world was prepared. It happened just at the right time.

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You already have the answer to this. By doubling down on your out-of-context interpretation of a statement by President Hinckley after you have been corrected.

I'm only responding to your utterly wrong-headed assertions. I would be inclined to do the same with anyone, adult or child.

 

For some reason, you seem to steadfastly resist getting the point. His statement, in the context of the questions that were put to him, pertained to polygamy as it is today practiced by apostate off-shoot groups from Mormonism. It was not referring to plural marriage as it was taught by Joseph Smith and practiced by the Latter-day Saints pre-Manifesto.

 

I thank you for including the FairMormon link but ask that when you quote the statement, you include the context, including the question(s) to which President Hinckley was responding.

I would love a link.  My google abilities aren't very sharp today.  Wait, found one.  I will check it out, I know I have in the past, but my memory doesn't serve at the moment.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Tacenda

[Bernard Gui]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the interest of providing the context that Tacenda and others seem determined to ignore, here is a transcription of the portion of the Larry King interview with President Hinckley. As can be seen, the context of President Hinckley's statement that has been quoted here -- including the questions that were put to him by the interview -- is clearly polygamy that is being practiced illegally today by apostate and off-shoot groups from Mormonism, not the principle of plural marriage that was taught by Joseph Smith and practiced by the Latteer-day Saints prior to the Manifesto:

 

Larry King was quite persistent in his questioning. "Would you look better?" Pres Hinckley responded with patience and consistency.

Context tells the story.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I would love a link.  My google abilities aren't very sharp today.

Hopefully by now you have seen the link and the lengthy, contextual transcript portion that I have provided.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

In my opinion, neither the Church nor the world was prepared. It happened just at the right time.

I think that's a reasonable supposition.

That said, if history has taught us anything in this matter, it is the folly of dogmatizing on suppositions as to the reason why the ban was instituted in the first place and allowed to continue. Had that not happened in the past, it would not not have been necessary to make the disavowals that are now made in the Gospel Topics essay.

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that's a reasonable supposition.

That said, if history has taught us anything in this matter, it is the folly of dogmatizing on suppositions as to the reason why the ban was instituted in the first place and allowed to continue. Had that not happened in the past, it would not not have been necessary to make the disavowals that are now made in the Gospel Topics essay.

I have my own ideas about why the ban was instituted and perpetuated, and they do not require disavowals. But who am I?

[Bernard Gui]

On May 21, 2016 at 5:42 PM, poptart said:

I wanted to ask what people think about the future of the church.....

Anywau, where do you think the church will go from here?

There are a number of scriptures that tell us which way the Church will go in the future. I would much rather rely on them than on words from a book or a panel discussion.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hopefully by now you have seen the link and the lengthy, contextual transcript portion that I have provided.

Listening to the interview, as I type. You will be disappointed in me and I may appear thick headed but doctrine and practice are two different things in my mind.  That he put it in the same few sentences, in my mind, doesn't make a difference.  But on second thought I will give this to you.  Sorry, I'll be careful in the future.

 

doc·trine

ˈdäktrən/

noun

a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

"the doctrine of predestination"

synonyms:creed, credo, dogma, belief, teaching, ideology; More

US

a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs.

"the Monroe Doctrine"

 

prac·tice

ˈpraktəs/

noun

1.

the actual application or use of an idea, belief, or method as opposed to theories about such application or use.

"the principles and practice of teaching"

synonyms:application, exercise, use, operation, implementation, execution More

2.

repeated exercise in or performance of an activity or skill so as to acquire or maintain proficiency in it.

"it must have taken a lot of practice to become so fluent"

synonyms:training, rehearsal, repetition, preparation; More

verb

1.

perform (an activity) or exercise (a skill) repeatedly or regularly in order to improve or maintain one's proficiency.

"I need to practice my French"

synonyms:rehearse, run through, go over/through, work on/at; More

2.

carry out or perform (a particular activity, method, or custom) habitually or regularly.

"we still practice some of these rituals today"

synonyms:carry out, perform, observe

Edited June 6, 2016 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have my own ideas about why the ban was instituted and perpetuated, and they do not require disavowals. But who am I?

As do I. But I would be careful to add that I don't know the reason; that, as with anyone else, all I can do is speculate until such time as the Almighty chooses to make all things known.

 

Edited June 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As do I. But I would be careful to add that I don't know the reason; that, as with anyone else, all I can do is speculate.

 

Indeed. That is why I asked the question, "But who am I?" It is sufficient for my needs, however.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Listening to the interview, as I type. You will be disappointed in me and I may appear thick headed but doctrine and practice are two different things in my mind.  That he put it in the same few sentences, in my mind, doesn't make a difference.

 

doc·trine

ˈdäktrən/

noun

a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

"the doctrine of predestination"

synonyms:creed, credo, dogma, belief, teaching, ideology; More

US

a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs.

"the Monroe Doctrine"

 

prac·tice

ˈpraktəs/

noun

1.

the actual application or use of an idea, belief, or method as opposed to theories about such application or use.

"the principles and practice of teaching"

synonyms:application, exercise, use, operation, implementation, execution More

2.

repeated exercise in or performance of an activity or skill so as to acquire or maintain proficiency in it.

"it must have taken a lot of practice to become so fluent"

synonyms:training, rehearsal, repetition, preparation; More

verb

1.

perform (an activity) or exercise (a skill) repeatedly or regularly in order to improve or maintain one's proficiency.

"I need to practice my French"

synonyms:rehearse, run through, go over/through, work on/at; More

2.

carry out or perform (a particular activity, method, or custom) habitually or regularly.

"we still practice some of these rituals today"

synonyms:carry out, perform, observe

My own view is that the conditional, temporary practice of plurality of wives is included within the doctrine of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. (That is, the Lord, at certain times and for His own purposes, has decreed the practice of plurality of wives for a limited period of time.)

You are entitled to disagree with that belief.

But you are not entitled to apply an out-of-context meaning to a statement made by President Hinckley in an interview.