Compromise is the key

[stemelbow]

Quote

If it is successfully defined as a right to discriminate, religious freedom will lose," Schultz said. "The issue has been defined, and not in a way that a religious-freedom supporter would recognize.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4093249-155/compromise-not-division-is-the-way

The Church seems far more about wanting religious freedom defined as right to discriminate, then it is about compromise (the Church continues to push losing political fights in other countries regarding SSM). 

Is it possible for the church to compromise (meaning give) if the Church claims to be run by God, teaching things that are eternally true, as it pertains to this issue? 

[HappyJackWagon]

The church could easily compromise without even altering doctrine. They can accept SSM as a reality of society and stop fighting against civil rights of SSM while still maintaining their religious standard.

The church makes the mistake of thinking its position is the right position for all of society and that all of society must listen to them. Society will choose for itself. In the quest to secure religious liberty for the church, it undercuts religious liberty of others who believe differently about SSM. Their position and the continual fight against marriage equality is a self-interested attempt to carve out their own space, even at the expense of others.

[JLHPROF]

Compromise is not an option when it would require violating a law, standard, or correct principle.

Where no law, standard, or correct principle is at stake, THEN compromise is a good decision.

Letting go of the Iron Rod only has one result, regardless of the reason.
 

Quote

"It is not true that any opposition to same-sex marriage is, ipso facto, hatred toward gays," Scharffs said.

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Compromise is not an option when it would require violating a law, standard, or correct principle.

Where no law, standard, or correct principle is at stake, THEN compromise is a good decision.

Letting go of the Iron Rod only has one result, regardless of the reason.
 

 

Thanks JLHPROF.  I agree with "It is not true that any opposition to same-sex marriage is, ipso facto, hatred toward gays," Scharffs said.

I disagree that compromise is not an option.  Without it, we will all lose. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks JLHPROF.  I agree with "It is not true that any opposition to same-sex marriage is, ipso facto, hatred toward gays," Scharffs said.

I disagree that compromise is not an option.  Without it, we will all lose.

I think compromises have already been made.  I admit that some were forced and some were made grudgingly.

But compromise has been made.  The difference is where people draw the line between compromise and correct principle.
There is a huge difference between compromise and concession.

Edited July 8, 2016 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I think compromises have already been made.  I admit that some were forced and some were made grudgingly.

But compromise has been made.  The difference is where people draw the line between compromise and correct principle.
There is a huge difference between compromise and concession.

I'm curious what compromises you have in mind. 

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Church seems far more about wanting religious freedom defined as right to discriminate, then it is about compromise (the Church continues to push losing political fights in other countries regarding SSM). 

Despite how it "seems" [to who?--very arguable!!!], the Church, knowing there are many parties to satisfy on this issue in a free country, expects, accepts, or advocates for compromise, depending on where her starting position is. For example:

“The effect of the 2015 Utah legislative action is a compromise in the truest sense. The Church has not altered its doctrinal position on homosexual behavior or what constitutes chastity. It has not changed its position on same-sex marriage, and all faiths now have additional protections for their fundamental right to freedom of religious belief and expression. On the LGBT rights side, a gay or transgender person in Utah can no longer be arbitrarily fired from a job or evicted from an apartment based simply on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/explaining-religious-freedom-and-lgbt-rights

See also:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/key-points-from-churchs-religious-freedom-and-fairness-announcement?lang=eng

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Is it possible for the church to compromise (meaning give) if the Church claims to be run by God, teaching things that are eternally true, as it pertains to this issue? 

Which "things that are eternally true" on this issue do you think are the subject of legislation?

The "successful definition" of religious freedom as a right to discriminate requires the general public to be the slaves of either ignorance or iniquity. If it were to be adopted by society as a whole, and subsequently made into a constitutionally legal definition, then as we all know, without freedom, there is no more room for compromise (the Book of Mormon talks about the power of voice of the people, whether for the legislation of moral correctness or iniquity). The Church's voice in the political process would be neutralized, and the interests against the Church's position would allow no compromise.

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church makes the mistake of thinking its position is the right position for all of society and that all of society must listen to them.

This is silly. As long as they have the freedom to do so, religious people and organizations do not have to stop asserting their legislative views through any legal means possible. It is not their religion to force others to believe and live as they do, but to do everything in their power to preserve what they think is right (by virtue of their tenets and their freedom to act on them) for their society. Once a compromise is made, that is when they accept the outcome as citizens while continuing to believe the tenets as saints. A compromise is not an abrogation of their religious freedom, and exercising their religious freedom in defining the laws is not compulsion on anyone.

[Storm Rider]

44 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church could easily compromise without even altering doctrine. They can accept SSM as a reality of society and stop fighting against civil rights of SSM while still maintaining their religious standard.

The church makes the mistake of thinking its position is the right position for all of society and that all of society must listen to them. Society will choose for itself. In the quest to secure religious liberty for the church, it undercuts religious liberty of others who believe differently about SSM. Their position and the continual fight against marriage equality is a self-interested attempt to carve out their own space, even at the expense of others.

I think you misunderstand the role of the Church, prophets, God's laws, and Jesus Christ - One of the purposes is to warn our neighbor, warn our community, our nation, and the world what is and what is not "right" in the eyes of God.  Warning does not, and never has, equate to demanding people listen or even obey that warning.  It means that the sins of that generation, those people will no longer be on the the heads of the Church or God, but firmly on the heads of every individual that chooses to ignore the laws of God and instead follow after the desires of their own carnal desires.  

[ksfisher]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church could easily compromise without even altering doctrine. They can accept SSM as a reality of society and stop fighting against civil rights of SSM while still maintaining their religious standard.

The church makes the mistake of thinking its position is the right position for all of society and that all of society must listen to them. Society will choose for itself. In the quest to secure religious liberty for the church, it undercuts religious liberty of others who believe differently about SSM. Their position and the continual fight against marriage equality is a self-interested attempt to carve out their own space, even at the expense of others.

You seem to be saying that the gospel of Jesus Christ, as taught by His modern prophets and apostles, is not right for everyone.

[hope_for_things]

This whole issue has so many parallels to the plural marriage position of the church a little over 100 yrs ago, its uncanny.  I predict that the church will continue to moderate its stance on this issue, incrementally becoming less discriminatory and more in alignment with society.  

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This whole issue has so many parallels to the plural marriage position of the church a little over 100 yrs ago, its uncanny.  I predict that the church will continue to moderate its stance on this issue, incrementally becoming less discriminatory and more in alignment with society.  

We still believe in polygamy, and that SSM is a sin.

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You seem to be saying that the gospel of Jesus Christ, as taught by His modern prophets and apostles, is not right for everyone.

Well it is true that far less than 1% of the people in this world are LDS.  Makes ya realize quickly that God's plan is not quite Church domination, and yet He still has a plan for everyone, no? 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

We still believe in polygamy, and that SSM is a sin.

Do you still believe the teaching that polygamy is essential for the highest degree of the celestial kingdom?  I haven't heard that preached about in my lifetime by mainstream Mormons or leadership.  

What about polyandry, is that a sin?  

And marriage between one man and one woman was the original standard in the D&C.  The history is messy....

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Do you still believe the teaching that polygamy is essential for the highest degree of the celestial kingdom?  I haven't heard that preached about in my lifetime by mainstream Mormons or leadership.  

What about polyandry, is that a sin?  

And marriage between one man and one woman was the original standard in the D&C.  The history is messy....

Good questions, let's see if they get answered.

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Do you still believe the teaching that polygamy is essential for the highest degree of the celestial kingdom?  I haven't heard that preached about in my lifetime by mainstream Mormons or leadership.

What about polyandry, is that a sin?

And marriage between one man and one woman was the original standard in the D&C.  The history is messy....

1. Yes, I do.  But no the Church teaching today is that it is not.
2. No, not if there is only one eternal sealing.  Civil marriage is a man made construction with nothing to do with God.  Polyandrous sealings would be an issue, although Calm and Julian report that they do happen sometimes.
3. Marriage between one man and one woman was the original standard when the Church was operating with only the ecclesiastical priesthood.  Polygamous marriage is the higher law and wasn't directly commanded by the Lord until the higher priesthood and ordinances were restored.
 

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Good questions, let's see if they get answered.

Edited July 8, 2016 by JLHPROF

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

1. Yes, I do.  But no the Church teaching today is that it is not.
2. No, not if there is only one eternal sealing.  Civil marriage is a man made construction with nothing to do with God.  Polyandrous sealings would be an issue, although Calm and Julian report that they do happen sometimes.
3. Marriage between one man and one woman was the original standard when the Church was operating with only the ecclesiastical priesthood.  Polygamous marriage is the higher law and wasn't directly commanded by the Lord until the higher priesthood and ordinances were restored.
 

Interesting for #1 that you do agree with it, yet you still consider yourself a believer that the current LDS leadership holds keys and priesthood authority?   How do you square this belief, just curious, I'm not going to dispute whether you're right or wrong on this issue.  

I can understand your positions on some of these fundamentals, I think you'd probably fit in better with the Saints of 130 years ago, as far as theological teachings are concerned.  

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting for #1 that you do agree with it, yet you still consider yourself a believer that the current LDS leadership holds keys and priesthood authority?   How do you square this belief, just curious, I'm not going to dispute whether you're right or wrong on this issue. 

Keys and authority are passed down through a specific process of ordination and succession.
In addition we were told clearly that this is the final dispensation and that those keys and authority will never be taken from the earth and need to be restored again.  Or else the earth would be destroyed.

Given those two teachings that I believe, along with scriptures and prophecies of the Church and its leaders making some wrong choices and being set back in order at a later date, I see no difficulty squaring my beliefs.
The Church can get things wrong or make a wrong change and still be God's Church.  And he will correct those errors in his own due time (probably sooner than we think).

Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith (and possibly Joseph Smith) ALL taught in one way or another that polygamy was necessary to exaltation.  Then the Church ended the practice.  The Church today no longer teaches that polygamy is necessary for exaltation.

This means three main options:

• A. The early prophets were wrong and the current prophets received further light correcting them.  I have a hard time with this if the early prophets learned that teaching by revelation.  New revelation cannot contradict previous revelation.
• B. The practice was stopped by the will of the people and God's allowance for agency, but will be set in order and reinstated at some point as eternal laws don't apply to some and not others.  All must be saved on the same principles.  I lean this direction.
• C. Polygamy never was essential for exaltation and no revelation ever taught that it was.
   

Quote

I can understand your positions on some of these fundamentals, I think you'd probably fit in better with the Saints of 130 years ago, as far as theological teachings are concerned.

No argument here.
My beliefs basically go:
1. Joseph Smith restored 100% of the gospel
2. Joseph Smith taught that new revelation cannot contradict previous revelation, only provide additional light.
3. Any part of the 100% that has been removed or contradicted will have to be corrected prior to the Millennial reign of Christ.

Other than that, this is still God's Church and he will decide when he needs to set it back in order.

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4093249-155/compromise-not-division-is-the-way

The Church seems far more about wanting religious freedom defined as right to discriminate, then it is about compromise (the Church continues to push losing political fights in other countries regarding SSM). 

Is it possible for the church to compromise (meaning give) if the Church claims to be run by God, teaching things that are eternally true, as it pertains to this issue? 

Compromise on doctrine is not possible.  God does not compromise with the wicked.  The Church can promote compromise in the political or secular parts of life.  If the Church really believes in agency that that we fought a "war" in heaven so that mankind would have agency, we should be tolerant to allow people to make choices and do things we may disagree with. As long as the rights of one does not trample the rights of another, it should seek after establishing agency.  Saying one should be allowed or should have the right to do something does not mean one endorses the activity itself.  I think all people should have the right to juice themselves up with cocaine to their hearts content.  I also believe they have the right and responsibility to accept the negative consequences of that decision and if that means getting an overdose, that is their right and problem as well. 

 

Not all fights against SSM in other countries are losing fights.  SSM will never be accepted in many countries. In these places, the Church is not on the losing political side.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4093249-155/compromise-not-division-is-the-way

The Church seems far more about wanting religious freedom defined as right to discriminate, then it is about compromise (the Church continues to push losing political fights in other countries regarding SSM). 

Is it possible for the church to compromise (meaning give) if the Church claims to be run by God, teaching things that are eternally true, as it pertains to this issue? 

The compromise is, has been, and will continue to be something like this:

Church/ Church member: SSM is sinful and nobody should be doing it or approving of it because it is sinful and wrong.

Society member who agrees:  Yes, I agree, and we should continue to keep sharing what we think on this issue.

Society member who disagrees: No, you are wrong.  I know you believe it is sinful and wrong but I don't agree with you saying that it is sinful and wrong and I think you should just accept it as something that society should approve of.

Church/ Church member AND Society member who agrees with the Church/Church member:  We're going to keep telling you what we think and believe.

Society member who disagrees: I'm going to keep telling you what I think and believe too.

And thus it will go on and on and on like this as long as there is this disagreement.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Ahab

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Compromise on doctrine is not possible.  

The Church's official doctrine has been compromised a few times.  And we're still kicking and breathing, so I think yoru statement is untrue.  Do we still believe, for instance, that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence?  That inter-racial marriage is to be condemned? 

8 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

God does not compromise with the wicked.

I dont' know that.  We're all wicked to some extent. 

8 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

 The Church can promote compromise in the political or secular parts of life.  If the Church really believes in agency that that we fought a "war" in heaven so that mankind would have agency, we should be tolerant to allow people to make choices and do things we may disagree with. As long as the rights of one does not trample the rights of another, it should seek after establishing agency.  Saying one should be allowed or should have the right to do something does not mean one endorses the activity itself.  I think all people should have the right to juice themselves up with cocaine to their hearts content.  I also believe they have the right and responsibility to accept the negative consequences of that decision and if that means getting an overdose, that is their right and problem as well. 

 

Not all fights against SSM in other countries are losing fights.  SSM will never be accepted in many countries. In these places, the Church is not on the losing political side.

I'm confused.  It seems like you advocated that we should not impose on others in order to take away their rights--as in marriage.  But then you support the Church battling in other countries were SSm is still not illegal. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This whole issue has so many parallels to the plural marriage position of the church a little over 100 yrs ago....

Do you mean from the SSM campaign pov (they are in the position the Church was then) or the attempt of the Church to be allowed to practice their religious freedom which was violently and viciously at times prevented?

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Do you still believe the teaching that polygamy is essential for the highest degree of the celestial kingdom?  I haven't heard that preached about in my lifetime by mainstream Mormons or leadership.  

What about polyandry, is that a sin?  

And marriage between one man and one woman was the original standard in the D&C.  The history is messy....

Yes. If we are commanded by God to practice it. It is only held in abeyance for this life. 

No. However if God commands it then it is not a sin.

It is not original to the Book of Mormon, PoGP, or the Bible.  I like to see your source for where it is original to D&C.

Yes history is very messy.

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

• B. The practice was stopped by the will of the people and God's allowance for agency, but will be set in order and reinstated at some point as eternal laws don't apply to some and not others.  All must be saved on the same principles.  I lean this direction.

Your post is a very clear response, thanks for explaining your position so well.   I can very much respect it as you've logically thought things out. Personally I align with C as the most likely of the above options, but I would like to ask a question about what happens during this time period where things are out of alignment with God's will.  

If polygamy is essential for the highest kingdom, then how do people born in the church during this time period where it isn't practiced get to that highest kingdom?  Is there a way for people to get sealed in the next life or during the Millennium, and in your mind how does this square with the teaching about no marriage in the next life from the NT?  

 

[thesometimesaint]

All that is required is belief in the principle, and doing what God commands.

All Sealings must be performed during this life, either by the person themselves or by proxy.

The Millennium is still this life.