hope_for_things Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 Thanks to modern day revelation, the church is now less prejudice against single people and divorced people. In all seriousness, I should just be grateful for the change, but its also sad that the past policies even existed in the first place.
mfbukowski Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 1 hour ago, USU78 said: I think I may have just had an apostrophe: 30+ men with no prospect of marriage retreating into quasimonastitude as Veil Workers looks a lot like ... what again? That could easily account for the prior policy, though I've never seen it explained in any terms, let alone squeamishness about RC monasticism. Dang ya. You said it first but honest- I didn't read it before I said my piece above.
mfbukowski Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 53 minutes ago, bluebell said: I think you mean epiphany. No that's a Catholic feast day. Three kings and all that! 2
mfbukowski Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks to modern day revelation, the church is now less prejudice against single people and divorced people. In all seriousness, I should just be grateful for the change, but its also sad that the past policies even existed in the first place. Times change, the church changes. People see that as a detriment for some reason but not me- for me that is our strength- an open canon. Why have living prophets if nothing every changes? The way the missionaries teach about living prophets is based on the fact that we need inspired advice for our day. but whenever it comes we lament not getting it "right" in the past. No good deed goes unpunished and you can't win for losing. But of course the church no longer receives revelation right? The anti's want it both ways- first they complain about no changes, then when they come, it's "It should have happened years ago" Wrong Years ago there were different needs. Progressives want change as long as it is not in the church. And when it comes, it must be because the church didn't get it right in the first place. Total absurdity. Edited August 25, 2017 by mfbukowski 4
bluebell Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 27 minutes ago, USU78 said: You forgot Trek. And activity days. I don't have to do activity days thankfully because that's a part of primary and not Young Women's but I probably won't have to go on trek because they don't usually ask sisters to go without their husbands, and my husband and I could never both go at the same time. Thank goodness. 3
thesometimesaint Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Times change, the church changes. People see that as a detriment for some reason but not me- for me that is our strength- an open canon. Why have living prophets if nothing every changes? The way the missionaries teach about living prophets is based on the fact that we need inspired advice for our day. but whenever it comes we lament not getting it "right" in the past. No good deed goes unpunished and you can't win for losing. But of course the church no longer receives revelation right? The anti's want it both ways- first they complain about no changes, then when they come, it's "It should have happened years ago" Wrong Years ago there were different needs. Progressives want change as long as it is not in the church. And when it comes, it must be because the church didn't get it right in the first place. Total absurdity. I'm a Progressive and welcome good changes even in the Church. We should be the agents of good change instead of Johnny-Come-Latelies.
USU78 Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: No that's a Catholic feast day. Three kings and all that! Catholics worship on Apostrophe? The things you learn ... Edited August 25, 2017 by USU78 2
hope_for_things Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Times change, the church changes. People see that as a detriment for some reason but not me- for me that is our strength- an open canon. Why have living prophets if nothing every changes? The way the missionaries teach about living prophets is based on the fact that we need inspired advice for our day. but whenever it comes we lament not getting it "right" in the past. No good deed goes unpunished and you can't win for losing. But of course the church no longer receives revelation right? The anti's want it both ways- first they complain about no changes, then when they come, it's "It should have happened years ago" Wrong Years ago there were different needs. Progressives want change as long as it is not in the church. And when it comes, it must be because the church didn't get it right in the first place. Total absurdity. I agree that this can be a strength, I love the idea of ongoing and continuing revelation. Unfortunately what often seems to happen is that changes are made way after the rest of the culture has figured these things out. Lets not label antis, we don't have many of them on this board that I'm aware of, thats just a reductionist label. As a member of the church I'm frustrated with how slowly things like this happen. Is there anything in the theology of modern revelation that says revelation has to be behind the times on social change? Why does it have to be slow or incremental? I don't see that in Joseph Smith's leadership, why do you think its that way today?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: Here's what the article says: SALT LAKE CITY — Divorced Mormons and single men 31 and older may now serve as temple ordinance workers, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints confirmed on Wednesday. Until now, single men could serve as temple ordinance workers through age 30. Women already were eligible to serve beyond age 31. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865687431/Single-Mormon-men-over-30-divorcees-now-can-officiate-temple-ordinances.html This doesn't call them patrons. A patron is one who worships there. An officiatior is one who conducts the ceremony.
The Nehor Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks to modern day revelation, the church is now less prejudice against single people and divorced people. In all seriousness, I should just be grateful for the change, but its also sad that the past policies even existed in the first place. Why? The restoration is still ongoing. Things will get better. Jacob knew that things change. His hope was that future generations would not look with contempt or sorrow upon his day. 3 Now in this thing we do rejoice; and we labor diligently to engraven these words upon plates, hoping that our beloved brethren and our children will receive them with thankful hearts, and look upon them that they may learn with joy and not with sorrow, neither with contempt, concerning their first parents. 1
The Nehor Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I agree that this can be a strength, I love the idea of ongoing and continuing revelation. Unfortunately what often seems to happen is that changes are made way after the rest of the culture has figured these things out. Lets not label antis, we don't have many of them on this board that I'm aware of, thats just a reductionist label. As a member of the church I'm frustrated with how slowly things like this happen. Is there anything in the theology of modern revelation that says revelation has to be behind the times on social change? Why does it have to be slow or incremental? I don't see that in Joseph Smith's leadership, why do you think its that way today? Joseph Smith often intimated that he knew more then he was allowed to tell because the people were unready. Were we way ahead or way behind on polygamy? Women's political rights? Or if, as I believe, God gives revelation when we seek it then maybe the cultural shifts we see are inspired by God. Most people have short memories. When I was a kid calling someone gay was an insult. We played "Smear the Queer" on the church lawn and on the playground (a fun game with an unfortunate name). I remember in Middle School a homophobic slur in a classroom and the teacher tried to call out the homophobia and how ridiculous it was. We laughed it off as him just being a weird old fogey and there was more then one person who implied he was gay. If the revelation had come then what would have been the response of the members including people who now would rejoice at this change (I know I would have been weirded out). While the truly faithful would have stayed many would have left in disgust. Schisms would form. False prophets would have abounded. If it happened now......much less of that. We do not wait until the very end though. I know members now who I suspect would cheer if the Priesthood Ban were to come back. 2
hope_for_things Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Why? The restoration is still ongoing. Things will get better. Jacob knew that things change. His hope was that future generations would not look with contempt or sorrow upon his day. 3 Now in this thing we do rejoice; and we labor diligently to engraven these words upon plates, hoping that our beloved brethren and our children will receive them with thankful hearts, and look upon them that they may learn with joy and not with sorrow, neither with contempt, concerning their first parents. Its just sad that this revelation that we claim access to is so slow in adjusting to the events of the day. Unnecessary negative impacts occur while we wait for the light of knowledge that has shown itself on the world to eventually be interpreted as revelation by the brethren.
mfbukowski Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I agree that this can be a strength, I love the idea of ongoing and continuing revelation. Unfortunately what often seems to happen is that changes are made way after the rest of the culture has figured these things out. Lets not label antis, we don't have many of them on this board that I'm aware of, thats just a reductionist label. As a member of the church I'm frustrated with how slowly things like this happen. Is there anything in the theology of modern revelation that says revelation has to be behind the times on social change? Why does it have to be slow or incremental? I don't see that in Joseph Smith's leadership, why do you think its that way today? What about the Proclamation on the Family? That came out and people could not figure why it even need to be said- in a few years it was clear This little policy stuff about temple workers is minor stuff that always drags behind in institutions. As is clear most leadership did not know that this policy even existed, much less realize it needed to be changed. I did not even know the policy existed until I read this thread and I have a stake calling and am a temple worker and am a former bishop. The issue never came up in my experience so I was not even aware of it, much less figure out that it needed changing. 1
hope_for_things Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Joseph Smith often intimated that he knew more then he was allowed to tell because the people were unready. Were we way ahead or way behind on polygamy? Women's political rights? Or if, as I believe, God gives revelation when we seek it then maybe the cultural shifts we see are inspired by God. Most people have short memories. When I was a kid calling someone gay was an insult. We played "Smear the Queer" on the church lawn and on the playground (a fun game with an unfortunate name). I remember in Middle School a homophobic slur in a classroom and the teacher tried to call out the homophobia and how ridiculous it was. We laughed it off as him just being a weird old fogey and there was more then one person who implied he was gay. If the revelation had come then what would have been the response of the members including people who now would rejoice at this change (I know I would have been weirded out). While the truly faithful would have stayed many would have left in disgust. Schisms would form. False prophets would have abounded. If it happened now......much less of that. We do not wait until the very end though. I know members now who I suspect would cheer if the Priesthood Ban were to come back. With Joseph claiming people weren't ready for the knowledge he had, I kind of think that was braggadocio. Way behind on polygamy (dredging up a culturally unequal practice in the name of restoration). Women's political rights, could you expound on this, nothing is coming to mind during the Joseph Smith years and Women's political rights. Unless you're talking about the RS, which I don't think of as political in a traditional sense. Those games we played as kids (sounds like you're from a similar generation as I) were unfortunate. Things have come a long way in the most recent years for the better. I like to think of it as revelation myself, but I don't think the brethren are out in front on this subject, rather I think they've fought it tooth and nail, and continue to fight against it. But the reality is they are shifting with the culture non the less. I do wonder about what you're saying, what would happen if church leaders were out in front of the culture on things like LGBT issues or racism. Could it create schisms, I imagine so. I think there might be break off groups for sure. But we have that anyway today. Would it be worse or better, I'm not sure.
The Nehor Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Its just sad that this revelation that we claim access to is so slow in adjusting to the events of the day. Unnecessary negative impacts occur while we wait for the light of knowledge that has shown itself on the world to eventually be interpreted as revelation by the brethren. But we do not know for sure what the negative impacts would have been if God had spoken sooner. I trust God to know what he is doing.
The Nehor Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: With Joseph claiming people weren't ready for the knowledge he had, I kind of think that was braggadocio. Way behind on polygamy (dredging up a culturally unequal practice in the name of restoration). Women's political rights, could you expound on this, nothing is coming to mind during the Joseph Smith years and Women's political rights. Unless you're talking about the RS, which I don't think of as political in a traditional sense. Those games we played as kids (sounds like you're from a similar generation as I) were unfortunate. Things have come a long way in the most recent years for the better. I like to think of it as revelation myself, but I don't think the brethren are out in front on this subject, rather I think they've fought it tooth and nail, and continue to fight against it. But the reality is they are shifting with the culture non the less. I do wonder about what you're saying, what would happen if church leaders were out in front of the culture on things like LGBT issues or racism. Could it create schisms, I imagine so. I think there might be break off groups for sure. But we have that anyway today. Would it be worse or better, I'm not sure. I disagree on just about everything. If they were on the cutting edge I think it would harm the church's mission which is not to be the first to accept the new wave of the future. That might make the church look better to many but would it save more souls? 1
hope_for_things Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: What about the Proclamation on the Family? That came out and people could not figure why it even need to be said- in a few years it was clear This little policy stuff about temple workers is minor stuff that always drags behind in institutions. As is clear most leadership did not know that this policy even existed, much less realize it needed to be changed. I did not even know the policy existed until I read this thread and I have a stake calling and am a temple worker and am a former bishop. The issue never came up in my experience so I was not even aware of it, much less figure out that it needed changing. Surely you're familiar with some of what's been written about the Proclamation to the Family being part of the work the church was involved in trying to fight the tide of same sex marriage, specifically in the Hawaii court system. This is an interesting chronology of events. https://www.mormonsocialscience.org/2008/01/04/richley-crapo-chronology-of-mormon-lds-involvement-in-same-sex-marriage-politics/ Personally, I don't think its revelation (even the church edited someone's talk, I can't remember which Apostle, but one of them that called it revelation in conference and was later redacted in written form). The Proclamation sounds amazingly dated today, with all the information we've been learning about LGBT issues especially so on the topic of gender. So if the church is explicitly not calling it revelation, and if historical events show how some of the dynamics that played a part in the creation of this document, and the text is looking more and more out of touch with the knowledge we have today, how is this a good example of revelation happening? I'm very perplexed.
JAHS Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 6 hours ago, USU78 said: Scott nailed it, I think: men over 30 who are single are a menace to society. Especially those who are still living in their parent's basements.
hope_for_things Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: But we do not know for sure what the negative impacts would have been if God had spoken sooner. I trust God to know what he is doing. But its not God speaking we're waiting on is it? Its human's trying to discern the will of God, and that process takes a long long time apparently (according to modern precedent.) Unless you think these humans are just passive puppets that God controls instantly whenever God wills it. I don't think of things in that way myself.
hope_for_things Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 9 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I disagree on just about everything. If they were on the cutting edge I think it would harm the church's mission which is not to be the first to accept the new wave of the future. That might make the church look better to many but would it save more souls? I'm intrigued by where you got this view about the church not wanting to be on the cutting edge as a protection mechanism for saving souls. Is this founded in theology somewhere? I can see how you might come to this conclusion from a pragmatic perspective, but I'm just not aware of any teachings that would support this idea explicitly. How do you think this squares up against Peter's experience in the NT with no longer following the Jewish Kosher dietary laws, or what about Paul's idea to preach to the gentiles. These were radical ideas at the time I believe, unless there is more in the history that I"m not aware of. Just curious how you came to this concept of following the culture rather than leading it as being a theological proposition.
The Nehor Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: But its not God speaking we're waiting on is it? Its human's trying to discern the will of God, and that process takes a long long time apparently (according to modern precedent.) Unless you think these humans are just passive puppets that God controls instantly whenever God wills it. I don't think of things in that way myself. True, but God sees the end from the beginning and put the people he needs to fulfill his work in place at the right time. The apostles do have to struggle and seek as we all do and that is for their own good.
The Nehor Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'm intrigued by where you got this view about the church not wanting to be on the cutting edge as a protection mechanism for saving souls. Is this founded in theology somewhere? I can see how you might come to this conclusion from a pragmatic perspective, but I'm just not aware of any teachings that would support this idea explicitly. How do you think this squares up against Peter's experience in the NT with no longer following the Jewish Kosher dietary laws, or what about Paul's idea to preach to the gentiles. These were radical ideas at the time I believe, unless there is more in the history that I"m not aware of. Just curious how you came to this concept of following the culture rather than leading it as being a theological proposition. Revelation. It was what I feel the Spirit taught me when I struggled with the Priesthood ban when I was a teenager and in my 20s. It was not strong enough for me to be certain enough to shout it from the housetops as God's sole reason and I would not anyways as I do not have that authority. It calmed my concerns. Obviously it would not for everyone and I do not mean to suggest that it is the only reason or even the main reason things unfold the way they do. I see today things that I think should be revealed and brought into general church practice and that explanation also covers why they are not here yet. I am not talking about SSM here though. I really have no idea where that is going. 1
The Nehor Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 22 minutes ago, JAHS said: Especially those who are still living in their parent's basements. Those are not a menace to society. They are mostly just a menace to their parents.
carbon dioxide Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: Anyone know why single men over 30 weren't allowed to be temple patrons, whilst single women over 30 were? Perhaps there was a view that they were a menace to society
Rain Posted August 25, 2017 Posted August 25, 2017 4 hours ago, bluebell said: I don't understand argument B and I don't see how the church would be concerned at it in regards to their policy on mothers in the temple. I have four kids, the oldest is 15 and the youngest just turned 3. I'm the YW's president and I am asked to be out of the home all. the. time. My obligations are far FAR more intensive than working in the temple once a week would ever be. If the church doesn't have a single problem asking me to be gone for more than a week each summer with girls camp, and Daughters of Zion camps, and overnights for Youth Stake conferences, not to mention the many weeknights and saturdays that the church expects me to almost exclusively dedicate to the church's youth program, I can't imagine that they would be at all worried that me being in the temple for a few hours once a week would send a mixed message. And that is all interesting because my BIL with young children worked and then was called to be a temple worker. In some temples the workers are supposed to work 2 shifts. So it is ok for fathers of young children to work 8 hours a week at the temple, but not mothers?
Recommended Posts