Are Mormon historians rewriting history, what is the truth?

[CV75]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I have a friend that was a member of the church.  His wife divorced him for another man.  Actually her therapist.  She has left the Mormon church.  He has also left the church remarried and has now joined another church.  He has custody of their youngest child.  He left it totally up to her which church she wanted to join.  She goes to church with her father and his new wife sometimes.  She goes with her older sisters sometimes.  Guess what.  She joined the Mormon church.  No one had a problem with that.  She was baptized without incident even though her parent is an apostate.  Though actually no one in the church has ever bothered to label him that.  She didn't have to disavow her parents.  She didn't have to wait until she was 18.  

Looking for an explanation from you on how this all fits your little scenerio.

What makes ssm unique from other forms of apostasy, and what you seem to be missing, is that the LDS view of marriage (whether the covenant is sealed by the priesthood or not) establishes the most fundamental unit of the Lord’s family, which interestingly enough is not the individual since every child of God comes into being from a long line of others.

For this reason, in the little scenario you are describing, the girl does not need to disavow the marriage of her parents who have joined other churches, nor does she, like any other convert, have to disavow a former church or a church she never belonged to. Ssm marriage must be disavowed by the adult child because by reason of his parents’ marriage (the powerful emotional and other family obligations notwithstanding), all the good that might have been served him does not justify his being co-opted into a family covenant that is not instituted of God.

Edited December 26, 2016 by CV75

[cdowis]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

She didn't have to disavow her parents.  She didn't have to wait until she was 18.  

Looking for an explanation from you on how this all fits your little scenerio.

In a SSM situation, the child does not have to disavow their parents.  They must, as an adult,  disavow the SSM relationship, the same as in a polygamy situation. 

Edited December 26, 2016 by cdowis

[california boy]

46 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What makes ssm unique from other forms of apostasy, and what you seem to be missing, is that the LDS view of marriage (whether the covenant is sealed by the priesthood or not) establishes the most fundamental unit of the Lord’s family, which interestingly enough is not the individual since every child of God comes into being from a long line of others.

For this reason, in the little scenario you are describing, the girl does not need to disavow the marriage of her parents who have joined other churches, nor does she, like any other convert, have to disavow a former church or a church she never belonged to. Ssm marriage must be disavowed by the adult child because by reason of his parents’ marriage (the powerful emotional and other family obligations notwithstanding), all the good that might have been served him does not justify his being co-opted into a family covenant that is not instituted of God.

 

14 minutes ago, cdowis said:

In a SSM situation, the child does not have to disavow their parents.  They must, as an adult,  disavow the SSM relationship, the same as in a polygamy situation. 

The point I was making is that his daughter was still allowed to be baptized at age 8 even though he is an apostate.  His actions did not bar his child from joining the church.  The church's policy has nothing to do with committing an act of apostasy.  It is only because it is a gay marriage.  When other marriage situations come up in the church, the standard answer I heard for years is that God will sort this out in the next life, especially since this is only a marriage for time. and not eternity.  But gay marriage can not be sorted out later, the church has to bar children from baptism.  THIS is what doesn't ring true to so many members.

As far as polygamist marriages, the church's policy is even more weird with the church continuing to eternally marrying multiple wives to men which is still polygamy unless you don't really believe those marriages in the temple are for eternity.  You are an apostate for marrying multiple wives on earth, but not an apostate for marrying multiple wives for eternity.  No action against children is required.

Maybe the mistake gays are making is that they should just live together on earth and then marry for eternity once their spouse dies.  I know you both are defending the church's position and trying to make some doctrinal sense out of it.  But really it makes not consistent sense whatsoever.  I give you points for twisting the pretzel in hopes that someone will buy that this policy is from God though and somehow fits the teachings of how Christ taught us to treat children and who is to blame for other's sins.

Edited December 26, 2016 by california boy

[cdowis]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

The point I was making is that his daughter was still allowed to be baptized at age 8 even though he is an apostate.  His actions did not bar his child from joining the church.

And the policy is directed, not to "apostasy" in a general sense, but very specifically to polygamy and SSM situations.  Sorry that you afre having difficulty comprehending that concept.

Edited December 26, 2016 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

52 minutes ago, cdowis said:

And the policy is directed, not to "apostasy" in a general sense, but very specifically to polygamy and SSM situations.  Sorry that you afre having difficulty comprehending that concept.

You are so right. The policy is/are directed at a diminishingly small minority that effects an almost invisible percentage of members. It is a cynically designed policy that touches extremely few but can be held up as a banner to display "divine guidance". 

We can argue endlessly here, and on similar sites, whether such as policy is ..................(insert appropriate -ism label) but so far I haven't seen any post by anyone actually in said predicament. There may be polygamist children who have sought baptism into the LDS church, who have had to wait until their 18th birthday. I have not seen any post here.

There may be children of SSM couples who have sought baptism. I haven't seen any post here.

But the church can wave a flag proudly about how God guides his faithful, and no one here really need feel effected by it, other than their forming an opinion. Win-win.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The point I was making is that his daughter was still allowed to be baptized at age 8 even though he is an apostate.  His actions did not bar his child from joining the church.  The church's policy has nothing to do with committing an act of apostasy.  It is only because it is a gay marriage.  When other marriage situations come up in the church, the standard answer I heard for years is that God will sort this out in the next life, especially since this is only a marriage for time. and not eternity.  But gay marriage can not be sorted out later, the church has to bar children from baptism.  THIS is what doesn't ring true to so many members.

As far as polygamist marriages, the church's policy is even more weird with the church continuing to eternally marrying multiple wives to men which is still polygamy unless you don't really believe those marriages in the temple are for eternity.  You are an apostate for marrying multiple wives on earth, but not an apostate for marrying multiple wives for eternity.  No action against children is required.

Maybe the mistake gays are making is that they should just live together on earth and then marry for eternity once their spouse dies.  I know you both are defending the church's position and trying to make some doctrinal sense out of it.  But really it makes not consistent sense whatsoever.  I give you points for twisting the pretzel in hopes that someone will buy that this policy is from God though and somehow fits the teachings of how Christ taught us to treat children and who is to blame for other's sins.

Yes, ssm along with a couple of other situations is a particular kind of apostasy that entails entering alternative covenants. I explained why it is additionally unique within that kind. And since ssm is apostasy, then the Church's policy on baptism of children does refer back to that. Now do you have a rational response to my actual previous explanation, rather than ignore it in deference to a nonsensical, visceral reaction?

[Bernard Gui]

On December 21, 2016 at 0:49 PM, churchistrue said:

Some things that I used to think were anti-Mormon lies that are now becoming part of the mainstream narrative (with nuanced explanations)

--Joseph Smith translated BOM with head in hat looking at seerstone, money digging style and not using the Urim and Thumim 

 

 

Joseph did not have the Urim and Thummim. In addition to the seerstone, he was given the "interpreters" that probably were made from two of the stones the Lord touched at the request of the brother of Jared to illuminate the Jaredites barges.

Here's an interesting description of how the Jewish Urim and Thummim functioned. Joseph's experience is consistent with this.

https://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

Quote

The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. The priest then informs the questioner of the answer.

Flavius Josephus writes (Antiquities 3:8:9) that the stones also shone brilliantly when Israel went forth into battle. This was considered as an auspicious sign for their victory.

Another midrashic passage indicates that when the tribes of Israel found favor in G-d's eyes, each respective stone shone brilliantly. But when particular members of any one tribe were involved in a transgression, that tribe's stone would appear tarnished and dimmed. The High Priest would see this phenomena and understand its cause. He would then cast lots within the rank of this tribe, until the guilty person was revealed and judged (Midrash HaGadol).

 

 

Edited December 26, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[ERayR]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

  I know you both are defending the church's position and trying to make some doctrinal sense out of it.  But really it makes not consistent sense whatsoever.  I give you points for twisting the pretzel in hopes that someone will buy that this policy is from God though and somehow fits the teachings of how Christ taught us to treat children and who is to blame for other's sins.

 

It depends on POV.  From my POV it makes perfect sense where from yours it doesn't.  From your POV ssm makes sense and you reject or ignore CDOWIS and CV75's explanations.  You are looking at the apostasy and ignoring the reason for the apostasy.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

But the church can wave a flag proudly about how God guides his faithful, and no one here really need feel effected by it, other than their forming an opinion. Win-win.

Which of course is the cynical fallback position for critics of the Church who have issues which give them heartburn, but can't get the Brethren to accede to their demands. Lose-lose.

 

Edited December 26, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ERayR said:

It depends on POV.  From my POV it makes perfect sense where from yours it doesn't.  From your POV ssm makes sense and you reject or ignore CDOWIS and CV75's explanations.  You are looking at the apostasy and ignoring the reason for the apostasy.

Here's another "POV" of note: He asserts, "You are an apostate for marrying multiple wives on earth, but not an apostate for marrying multiple wives for eternity. Well, that depends on a number of factors. But in all cases, ssm is both an apostate covenant in this life and is also not performed for eternity because such does not constitute the most fundamental unit of the Lord’s family.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

 But in all cases, ssm is both an apostate covenant in this life and is also not performed for eternity because such does not constitute the most fundamental unit of the Lord’s family.

I don't know if its an "apostate" covenant.  It is just a legal agreement that God does not recognize or endorse.  It as important to God as a home loan is.  Has some application in mortality but serves no benefit after one dies.

[readstoomuch]

I do agree with the policy, even if I don`t love it.  A very small number of people are actually involved and I think the policy was considered because it had come up a few times and leaders were asking for direction.  I think it was quietly put into the Church Handbook so as to not cause a public outcry.  When someone saw it, who must have been in some leadership position, they immediately sent it to John Dehlin.  Of course John Dehlin (and others I suppose) made it go viral.  So the large number of people who are affected seem to be those who have great sympathy for SSM, including my own children.  I had to listen to my daughters great sorrow and broken heartedness about it.  There are more of those kind of people by far than the children of those relationships.  I am sure it feels very hard to be a Church leader and want to have policies as flexible as possible, but be sensitive to other feelings across a far spectrum.  So, even though the number of children effected is small, it makes a much larger number of people with sympathies for ssm mad/sad.  

 

[cdowis]

7 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

But the church can wave a flag proudly about how God guides his faithful, and no one here really need feel effected by it, other than their forming an opinion.

I fear your bitterness towards the church will lead you to a very dark place.  It appears you have already arrived in the great and spacious building.

Edited December 26, 2016 by cdowis

[CV75]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't know if its an "apostate" covenant.  It is just a legal agreement that God does not recognize or endorse.  It as important to God as a home loan is.  Has some application in mortality but serves no benefit after one dies.

The Church considers marriage a covenant, whether it is made in or out of the Church. It is important enough for God to make commandments about fornication and adultery even without considering the sealing power, and to grant His servants the sealing power to offer marriage as an eternal covenant. Those temporal and spiritual things that are most important to God are those that have benefit in both mortality and immortality. This is why Jesus performed the atonement, and why and how these important things persist beyond death. Ssm is apostasy according to the Handbook. I consider it to be one of the apostate covenants listed in the Handbook in that it perverts the original institution that God established and that which the Church recognizes as an extension of the family and family order in heaven. I think it is as important to God as sin and apostasy are.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

And the policy is directed, not to "apostasy" in a general sense, but very specifically to polygamy and SSM situations.  Sorry that you afre having difficulty comprehending that concept.

Well this is exactly what I am talking about.  The church has set up a very unique way of handling children of gay couples that marry. What that policy doesn't do is fit in with other doctrine IMO, despite your attempts to figure out a way to make it fit.  I think I need to restate again very clearly.  I really don't care one bit about the church's policy on gay marriage.  It is their church. They can let in whoever they want and bar any children they want from belonging.  Of course the church can bar the children of gay parents from being baptized.  The church can allow it's members to be against gay marriage, yet still hold temple recommends.  Yet the church can not allow a child of a gay couple that hold that SAME viewpoint from baptism if they want.  

The church allows its members to have eternal polygamist marriages but disallow the children's baptism when their parents have polygamist marriages on earth.  The church can make up any crazy rule it wants.  And none of it has to make sense.  You both seem to have been able to take puzzle pieces that don't seem to fit together for me and manage to have them fit for you.  All the best.  To me, it just seems like a complete mess.  But hey, it is not my mess, so I am not going to worry about it.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

  But hey, it is not my mess, so I am not going to worry about it.

Except to return here from time to time to complain about it.

 

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Except to return here from time to time to complain about it.

 

Read my posts.  I have never said anything about changing the policy.  I only am pointing out the total lack of consistency with any other policy.  I have heard, IMO the strained theories, but frankly they make little sense to me.  They lack consistency with other policies concerning parents that are living in sin.  For some reason a lot of members have a problem simply saying, "Yes the church treats gay couples and their families different than anyone else."  It is a much more honest answer IMO.

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Well this is exactly what I am talking about.  The church has set up a very unique way of handling children of gay couples that marry. What that policy doesn't do is fit in with other doctrine IMO, despite your attempts to figure out a way to make it fit.  

On the contrary, regardless of your inability to comprehend it, it fits with Matt 16:19 and D&C 81:2.  The President of the church has he keys o the administration of the kingdom of God.

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

I do agree with the policy, even if I don`t love it.  A very small number of people are actually involved and I think the policy was considered because it had come up a few times and leaders were asking for direction.  I think it was quietly put into the Church Handbook so as to not cause a public outcry.  When someone saw it, who must have been in some leadership position, they immediately sent it to John Dehlin.  Of course John Dehlin (and others I suppose) made it go viral.  So the large number of people who are affected seem to be those who have great sympathy for SSM, including my own children.  I had to listen to my daughters great sorrow and broken heartedness about it.  There are more of those kind of people by far than the children of those relationships.  I am sure it feels very hard to be a Church leader and want to have policies as flexible as possible, but be sensitive to other feelings across a far spectrum.  So, even though the number of children effected is small, it makes a much larger number of people with sympathies for ssm mad/sad.  

 

I think the news of this policy made the difference between my son ever wanting to return to activity in the church. He was much like your daughter and very mad that the church was doing this. I was quite surprised at his reaction. I believe it is a major deterrant for members who are middle wayers and those who are possible converts, to have anything more to do with the church. It was the nudge that many people needed in order to cut ties for good. 

But my topic for this thread had nothing to do with the policy...kind of strange how this has turned out. It was suppose to be about the question: how members of this board that are apologists or LDS scholars, feel about the Stoddards stating that Bushman is a non believer, and others like him. She might even put some members on this board in the same boat. 

I believe the Stoddards represent the majority of LDS out there. Those people on here that discuss these issues remind me of the one or two members who speak up in GD class and no one really knows what they are talking about, it's so out there or above members' heads, when in reality, it's the truth they never knew.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Tacenda

[readstoomuch]

It seems like most threads that are derailed end up in ssm or a Joseph smith polygamy discussion.  

I have met Richard Bushman and he is a true believer.  I think the more you read or the longer you are in the Church the more likely you are to give others latitude in what you call "a believing Mormon."  I think most people, including Mormons, don't read extensively or question evidence critically.  Even if Mormons are better educated than the average population, if the Church works for them, much of their time is spent just surviving and making a living.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

On the contrary, regardless of your inability to comprehend it, it fits with Matt 16:19 and D&C 81:2.  The President of the church has he keys o the administration of the kingdom of God.

I get it.  The thinking has been done.

Have you ever wondered why so many members of the church have a problem with this policy?  Have you ever wondered why so many feel this policy goes against the teachings of Christ as found in the scripture.  Have you ever wondered why members keep derailing threads to talk about this policy?  Have you ever wondered why I am not the only one that can't comprehend the value of such a policy that effects so few gay couples but causes so many to leave the church?  Perhaps this isn't about gay couples and their children.  The prophet just thought the church was getting too big and needed it to be even smaller than the .001% of the worlds population.  Yeah that's it. Another prophecy fulfilled.  When the church grows, it fulfills prophecy.  When the church dwindles, it fulfills prophecy.

[bcuzbcuz]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Which of course is the cynical fallback position for critics of the Church who have issues which give them heartburn, but can't get the Brethren to accede to their demands. Lose-lose.

 

Or because I stand on the side lines, not effected by the decision in any way: 0-0  A meaningless no pointer.  

It's like watching a 0-0 between Swansea and Crysal Palace. 90 minutes of boredom. Or  watching 9 innings of a 0-0 game between the Minnesota Twins and the Oakland A's. Less entertaining than watching grass grow.

Will the church ever listen to my opinion? Yeah, when H--- freezes over. Do I care? Yeah, when .......   never mind

[bcuzbcuz]

12 hours ago, cdowis said:

I fear your bitterness towards the church will lead you to a very dark place.  It appears you have already arrived in the great and spacious building.

Who are you to judge me?

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I get it.  The thinking has been done.

 

A decision has been made by those who have been called and sustained as prophets, seers and revelators in the church, and called by God to hold the keys to administer the church. What many do not realize is that certainly these points of view were discussed during the decision making process.  WE have been told how thee discussions are made be those with extensive church experience as bishops, stake presidents, etc, and they are very aware of the impact such decisions will have.  But, eventuall, a decision has to e made and a decision was made and agreed upon unanimously. 

Now you are free to continue to do your thinking, and to disagree with that decision,but realize there are likely those who had agreed with your concerns and took part in the discussion.  In this case, IMO, maintaining the integrity of the church was the main decision point.

Edited December 27, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

49 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Who are you to judge me?

I do not judge you at all.  I merely made an expression of my fear and concern, but you can simply continue down whatever path as you choose.

Perhaps you can go to your safe space by putting me on ignore.

Edited December 27, 2016 by cdowis