"ProgMormons"

[CV75]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

Standing at the door, knocking, asking is supported by scripture.

Your imposition of the idea that it somehow amounts to "organizing outside of the Church structure" is not a concept I need to provide support for.

As I said, the Sermon on the Mount reference, as expanded upon in D&C 88:62-65, has very specific application to asking anything that is not expedient.

Note in the Sermon on the Mount, the things being asked for (bread, fish, egg) are life-giving nourishment and in the figurative sense, represent the sustaining of spiritual life. The point in Matthew seems to be the Golden Rule (“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”), and the point from Luke is that we are to provide such to those who importune, as the Lord answers our pleadings.

Importuning entrance at the door of the priesthood session at the conference center to show (assert) readiness to receive the priesthood is not consistent with these verses, because asserting readiness is not spiritually life-sustaining; our readiness for blessings is measured only by the Lord. Even to hear the words of life spoken in conference is not consistent, because there are other ways were already provided for them to receive those spiritually life-sustaining messages, and even that in due time, as there is a primary and then a secondary, and then other audiences.

Showing readiness is not “expedient.” It is a process between the initiate and the priesthood leader and a determination made by the Lord through His representative.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, waveslider said:

You obviously don't truly understand how prayer and revelation works, judging by your comments here. I am not at all implying that general authorities hear and answer prayers. What I am saying is that they receive revelation from the exact same God to whom we are praying to, so when God wants them to change it they will receive that revelation to do so.

If that's what you think, I would submit you misunderstand the nature of prayer and revelation. Again, the leaders of the church use pilot programs and studies in conjunction with seeking the spirit. Revelation does not exist in an information vacuum. As I understand it, every auxiliary that exists in the church originated outside of the main church leadership. 

15 hours ago, waveslider said:

If you are prompted to ask them to pray about it then your very own revelation to take that action will help to get them to receive revelation. If you simply try to just coerce them to make changes outside of revelation you aren't following God's plan for how He runs His church, so in essence you are following Satan's plans.

How would anyone coerce church leaders into making changes, outside of a Liam Neeson movie? 

15 hours ago, waveslider said:

All desires are Godless if they go against God's plan, just ask why Lucifer got cast out of Heaven if you think otherwise. "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

Is God's plan to turn his children into mute submissive cows? I hope not. 

15 hours ago, waveslider said:

Mosiah 3:19 This scripture doesn't seem to mix too well with protests, unless of course you think that being, "....as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord Seeth fit to inflict upon..." us is part of protesting.

Only applicable if you think church leaders are the Lord, I think. 

15 hours ago, waveslider said:

My reference to the handling of the ancient artifact called the ark of the covenant is what I was referring to (handling, being the key word), not the artifact itself. What I meant was that God's way of allowing His authority take care of things doesn't need our intervention just because we think it should be taken care of differently. 

That's one way of interpreting the story, but certainly not the only way. 

15 hours ago, waveslider said:

My unspoken assumption isn't an assumption: ".....whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."
D&C 1:38

That scripture does not say that everything the servants say is equal to the Lord's voice. 

15 hours ago, waveslider said:

Respectfully doing anything that the Spirit prompts you to do is by far a more effective strategy, and yes it does behoove every individual of conscience (which is really the light of Christ anyway) to do what they feel is right. Protesting isn't how God runs things because it isn't a democratic church, It is run by only one, whom it is that we are worshiping in prayer anyway. This is why the first step should always be to pray about it and then take action accordingly, which is usually by going through the proper channels that the Lord has set in place for us already. If you do however feel that after prayer that you should buck the system by protesting or something, then by all means do it. It isn't any of us whom you need to be judged by, but rather He who's church it is that you would be protesting anyway.

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

As I said, the Sermon on the Mount reference, as expanded upon in D&C 88:62-65, has very specific application to asking anything that is not expedient.

Note in the Sermon on the Mount, the things being asked for (bread, fish, egg) are life-giving nourishment and in the figurative sense, represent the sustaining of spiritual life. The point in Matthew seems to be the Golden Rule (“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”), and the point from Luke is that we are to provide such to those who importune, as the Lord answers our pleadings.

Importuning entrance at the door of the priesthood session at the conference center to show (assert) readiness to receive the priesthood is not consistent with these verses, because asserting readiness is not spiritually life-sustaining; our readiness for blessings is measured only by the Lord. Even to hear the words of life spoken in conference is not consistent, because there are other ways were already provided for them to receive those spiritually life-sustaining messages, and even that in due time, as there is a primary and then a secondary, and then other audiences.

Showing readiness is not “expedient.” It is a process between the initiate and the priesthood leader and a determination made by the Lord through His representative.

Well, we disagree on how to interpret the applicability of the scriptures in question.

[waveslider]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

Revelation does not exist in an information vacuum.

I concur. Part of receiving revelation is trying to figure things out on our own, and then coming to the Lord in prayer to see if that is correct or not.
 

 

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

How would anyone coerce church leaders into making changes, outside of a Liam Neeson movie?

Protesting with a mob seems like a valid attempt at coercion.

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

Is God's plan to turn his children into mute submissive cows? I hope not. 

Not cows, but submissive... absolutely!: "....even as a child doth submit to his father."
Mosiah 3:19

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

Only applicable if you think church leaders are the Lord, I think. 

Not thinking that they are Lord, only that they are the ordained mouth pieces of Him, and the leaders of His church.

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

".....whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."
D&C 1:38

 

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

That scripture does not say that everything the servants say is equal to the Lord's voice. 

So that is justification to assert that the things a protesting mob say is the Lord's voice?

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

If that's what you think, I would submit you misunderstand the nature of prayer and revelation. Again, the leaders of the church use pilot programs and studies in conjunction with seeking the spirit. Revelation does not exist in an information vacuum. As I understand it, every auxiliary that exists in the church originated outside of the main church leadership. 

It's interesting to look at the changes implemented recently with respect to some of the advocacy that has happened:

The "Let Women Pray" campaign began in January 2013 along with some lesser publicized behind the scenes work that Calm has mentioned.  In April 2013, we finally had a woman pray in a General Conference session fulfilling the counsel provided by President Kimball 25 years earlier.

Since the Ordain Women movement began their work:  Priesthood Session was changed to be broadcast/streamed everywhere rather than just select locations, female general auxiliary leaders photos were put up alongside their male counterparts, the Women's session was expanded to include girls over 8 years old and was recognized as a session of General Conference.

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I concur. Part of receiving revelation is trying to figure things out on our own, and then coming to the Lord in prayer to see if that is correct or not.
 

Glad we agree on something!

17 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Protesting with a mob seems like a valid attempt at coercion.

Do protests involve force or threats somehow? I'm not sure I understand why you think protests are coercive. 

17 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Not cows, but submissive... absolutely!: "....even as a child doth submit to his father."
Mosiah 3:19

Not thinking that they are Lord, only that they are the ordained mouth pieces of Him, and the leaders of His church.

Great, so submitting to the Lord is not the same thing as submitting to church leaders, right?

 

17 minutes ago, waveslider said:

So that is justification to assert that the things a protesting mob say is the Lord's voice?

There is no "mob". But protesters are just as able to be inspired as anyone else. Of course it's a subjective judgement call. 

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Protesting with a mob seems like a valid attempt at coercion.

Not cows, but submissive... absolutely!: "....even as a child doth submit to his father."

Even in good faith, it is not the way the Spirit work with believers. Acts 8 provides a nice template of what not to do. Simon, a believer, coveted the priesthood and presumed a monetary transaction to those having the keys to delegate them would satisfy the requirement to receive ordination. This shows that even a believer can have his heart “not aright in the sight of God,” as sincere as he may be, and must repent to be free of such ignorance, which breeds bitterness and iniquity.

The only difference some 2000 years later is that instead of money, these petitioners use the currency of public voice and opinion.

Edited August 3, 2016 by CV75

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Even in good faith, it is not the way the Spirit work with believers. Acts 8 provides a nice template of what not to do. Simon, a believer, coveted the priesthood and presumed a monetary transaction to those having the keys to delegate them would satisfy the requirement to receive ordination. This shows that even a believer can have his heart “not aright in the sight of God,” as sincere as he may be, and must repent to be free of such ignorance, which breeds bitterness and iniquity.

The only difference some 2000 years later is that instead of money, these petitioners use the currency of public voice and opinion.

I'm not sure that's the greatest comparison. No one is trying to buy anything. They are seeking to persuade. 

Are missionaries attempting to "buy" converts with the currency of emotionally charged church videos? 

[waveslider]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

Do protests involve force or threats somehow? I'm not sure I understand why you think protests are coercive. 

Because they think that since there are enough of them they act like they represent the masses that aren't protesting with them. It is an attempt at manipulating the leaders to bend to a perception that it is the will of the people, even though it isn't the will of most of the people. Which really wouldn't matter anyway since they would only bend to the will of the Lord anyway. Leadership in this church isn't a political campaign and there are a lot a great leaders and prophets who have suffered torture and even death, yet still wouldn't bend on what the Lord has dictated to them. Protesting the church is a futile attempt, at best to change things. At the most it only creates the need for prayerful consideration of the issue at hand, which could just as easily be done through proper channels that are in place already.

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

Great, so submitting to the Lord is not the same thing as submitting to church leaders, right?

Where is the conflict? That is why I originally stated that we should get on our knees and petition the Lord first, if we think their is some type of problem with church policies.

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

There is no "mob". But protesters are just as able to be inspired as anyone else. Of course it's a subjective judgement call. 

This is also why I stated that if you feel like the Lord, through prayer, has revealed to you to protest His church, then by all means do it. It isn't up for anyone to judge except He who's church it is that you would be protesting, if it is a righteous act or not.

Edited August 3, 2016 by waveslider
wrong word

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Because they think that since there are enough of them they act like they represent the masses that aren't protesting with them. It is an attempt at manipulating the leaders to bend to a perception that it is the will of the people, even though it isn't the will of most of the people. Which really wouldn't matter anyway since they would only bend to the will of the Lord anyway. Leadership in this church isn't a political campaign and there are a lot a great leaders and prophets who have suffered torture and even death, yet still wouldn't bend on what the Lord has dictated to them. Protesting the church is a futile attempt, at best to change things. At the most it only creates the need for prayerful consideration of the issue at hand, which could just as easily be done through proper channels that are in place already.

Do you feel that way about all protests? What about the protests for civil rights in the '60s? Were those manipulative or coercive? 

If protesting the church is futile, how could it be coercive? 

 

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure that's the greatest comparison. No one is trying to buy anything. They are seeking to persuade. 

Are missionaries attempting to "buy" converts with the currency of emotionally charged church videos? 

It’s a great comparison. Both Simon and OW are attempting to buy ordination. The only difference is the currency OW uses is voice.

My understanding is that missionaries have not organized themselves to try to buy anything from the First Presidency or Twelve.

Missionaries are also characterized in scripture as selling or imparting rather than buying, as inviting people to come and partake of their spiritually rich message without money and without price. Nowhere are they figuratively described as buying converts.

It is said that Christ purchased us with His blood from the Father, because we cannot redeem ourselves. We can only accept His gift “without money and without price,” meaning He has made salvation and exaltation available to all and within our reach after all we can do.

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It’s a great comparison. Both Simon and OW are attempting to buy ordination. The only difference is the currency OW uses is voice.

That must mean that missionaries are attempting to buy converts with their voices, if voices are the same thing as currency.

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My understanding is that missionaries have not organized themselves to try to buy anything from the First Presidency or Twelve.

Apparently they're buying things from people they meet while tracting. 

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Missionaries are also characterized in scripture as selling or imparting rather than buying, as inviting people to come and partake of their spiritually rich message without money and without price. Nowhere are they figuratively described as buying converts.

That must mean that protesters are imparting rather than buying. Nowhere are they figuratively described as buying opinions.

My point was, your interpretation here is driven by the amount of cynicism you hold for the protesters. That can literally be aimed at any party taking any action.  It doesn't really hold water, though, which was the point of my comparison. 

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

That must mean that missionaries are attempting to buy converts with their voices, if voices are the same thing as currency.

Apparently they're buying things from people they meet while tracting. 

That must mean that protesters are imparting rather than buying. Nowhere are they figuratively described as buying opinions.

My point was, your interpretation here is driven by the amount of cynicism you hold for the protesters.

Money and protest can be a means of persuasion, but missionaries aren’t instructed to use them to bear witness and teach the Gospel message; it is free for all. As they Lord's representatives, they are not transacting anything (they are just the messenger). Persuasion is by the Spirit, and conversion is between the proselyte and the Lord They give Him their broken heart and contrite spirit, He gives them testimony and ordinances. So missionaries not buying anything, and the convert gives them nothing. The converts are buying salvation without money or price (currency) because they haven't any. They need to be redeemed of the Lord.

But Simon and OW attempted to purchase ordination by persuasion, but we know that ordination simply isn’t obtained in that way.

Your point is quite pointless! Not only are you comparing apples and oranges (conversion and ordination) as the same, you aren't recognizing that some forms of persuasion are condemned (money, protest) and some are encouraged (scripture, Spirit) in the Lord's kingdom.

Now stop being silly!

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Money and protest can be a means of persuasion, but missionaries aren’t instructed to use them to bear witness and teach the Gospel message; it is free for all. As they Lord's representatives, they are not transacting anything (they are just the messenger). Persuasion is by the Spirit, and conversion is between the proselyte and the Lord They give Him their broken heart and contrite spirit, He gives them testimony and ordinances. So missionaries not buying anything, and the convert gives them nothing. The converts are buying salvation without money or price (currency) because they haven't any. They need to be redeemed of the Lord.

But Simon and OW attempted to purchase ordination by persuasion, but we know that ordination simply isn’t obtained in that way.

Your point is quite pointless! Not only are you comparing apples and oranges (conversion and ordination) as the same, you aren't recognizing that some forms of persuasion are condemned (money, protest) and some are encouraged (scripture, Spirit) in the Lord's kingdom.

Now stop being silly!

What you don't seem to be seeing is that your comparison of the protesters with the story about Simon the magician is just as silly as my comparison of missionaries with Simon the magician. Both comparisons are apples to oranges.

Now if the protesters were attempting to get the priesthood by offering money to church leaders, you'd have a valid point.  

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Do you feel that way about all protests? What about the protests for civil rights in the '60s? Were those manipulative or coercive? 

If protesting the church is futile, how could it be coercive? 

 

Protests for civil rights in the 60;s weren't directed at an organization run by direct revelation from God. They were directed at an organization built up as a democratic republic, in which the people are supposed to have a say in things. The processes for changing policy is very different. Governmental policies are far more prone to being wrong than that of the Church.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Protests for civil rights in the 60;s weren't directed at an organization run by direct revelation from God. They were directed at an organization built up as a democratic republic, in which the people are supposed to have a say in things. The processes for changing policy is very different. Governmental policies are far more prone to being wrong than that of the Church.

What would that have to do with whether or not protesting is coercive, though? If, as you say, the church is immune to influence from protesters, it would seem that in the case of protesting church policies, protesting would be particularly uncoercive, to the point of being totally ineffectual. 

[waveslider]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

What would that have to do with whether or not protesting is coercive, though? If, as you say, the church is immune to influence from protesters, it would seem that in the case of protesting church policies, protesting would be particularly uncoercive, to the point of being totally ineffectual. 

The problem lies with the protesters who don't realize that protesting won't coerce the change.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, waveslider said:

The problem lies with the protesters who don't realize that protesting won't coerce the change.

I doubt they think they're trying to coerce anyone. Certainly they've made no threats or attempts at violence or blackmail. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

What you don't seem to be seeing is that your comparison of the protesters with the story about Simon the magician is just as silly as my comparison of missionaries with Simon the magician. Both comparisons are apples to oranges.

Now if the protesters were attempting to get the priesthood by offering money to church leaders, you'd have a valid point.  

No, your point is still invalid (and silly). It's like saying we shouldn't follow Jesus because He's Satan's brother. You just don't want to accept my comparison for whatever reason, and that's "OK" (as in obvious!).

Edited August 3, 2016 by CV75

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, your point is still invalid (and silly). It's like saying we shouldn't follow Jesus because He's Satan's brother. You just don't want to accept my comparison for whatever reason, and that's "OK" (as in obvious!).

If my point is invalid, so is yours. Either persuasion is equal to currency or it is not. 

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I doubt they think they're trying to coerce anyone. Certainly they've made no threats or attempts at violence or blackmail. 

Well they must have thought that they were going to get them to change church policy somehow or they wouldn't have been doing it in the first place.

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Well they must have thought that they were going to get them to change church policy somehow or they wouldn't have been doing it in the first place.

Right, through persuasion and relatively mild public pressure. 

Edited August 3, 2016 by Gray

[waveslider]

58 minutes ago, Gray said:

Right, through persuasion and relatively mild public pressure. 

I just think that our definitions of coercion differ. to me public pressure equals a form of coercion, where for you it doesn't unless it is a little more force rather than just threats of an unhappy public.

Edited August 3, 2016 by waveslider
skipped a word

[CV75]

21 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's interesting to look at the changes implemented recently with respect to some of the advocacy that has happened:

The "Let Women Pray" campaign began in January 2013 along with some lesser publicized behind the scenes work that Calm has mentioned.  In April 2013, we finally had a woman pray in a General Conference session fulfilling the counsel provided by President Kimball 25 years earlier.

Since the Ordain Women movement began their work:  Priesthood Session was changed to be broadcast/streamed everywhere rather than just select locations, female general auxiliary leaders photos were put up alongside their male counterparts, the Women's session was expanded to include girls over 8 years old and was recognized as a session of General Conference.

What a hoot! That’s like giving Lowry Nelson credit for OD2, or Pharaoh’s magicians taking credit for getting things to work when Moses finally got around to the task (or Nebuchadnezzar’s magicians, astrologers, sorcerers, and Chaldeans taking credit for giving Daniel the inspiration to finally get the dream right)!

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Gray said:

If my point is invalid, so is yours. Either persuasion is equal to currency or it is not. 

Nope! Yours is invalid. See the kind of dialogue your contributions generate? LOL