Church Announces Change in Temple Policies Re: 30+ Men / Divorced Persons

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

Depends, I suppose, on how one interprets various scriptures, such as Isaiah 55:8-9 ("My thoughts are not your thoughts ...") and 1 Cor. 2:14 ("The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him ...") and 1 Cor. 1:27 ("Foolish things confound the wise, and weak things confound the mighty ...") and 2 Nephi 27:21 ("I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work ...")

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

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?

 

Exactly, good question.  It doesn't seem like the church really cares how much the father is out of the home as long as it's for something to do with church.   

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

But this assumes no mistakes are made as God's foresight is planning everything out in advance, sounds like Calvinism to me.  That would make God the author of the mistakes or it would make God fallible for not recognizing when leaders would mess up.  

Look at the most recent statements condemning racism and white supremacists.  If you apply the sentiments of that statement to previous church leaders actions and proclamations it essentially condemns the past prophets of the church.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

This is the challenge we are forced to deal with, how and what do we do when institutions have immoral practices.  I don't always know the answer, but this goes for all institutions, private entities, governments, religions.  If there is a judgement it seems like we should be held accountable for how we act in light of the immorally we encounter.  

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But this assumes no mistakes are made as God's foresight is planning everything out in advance, sounds like Calvinism to me.  That would make God the author of the mistakes or it would make God fallible for not recognizing when leaders would mess up.  

Look at the most recent statements condemning racism and white supremacists.  If you apply the sentiments of that statement to previous church leaders actions and proclamations it essentially condemns the past prophets of the church.  

No, knowing the end from the beginning does not require choices be fixed beforehand.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is the challenge we are forced to deal with, how and what do we do when institutions have immoral practices.  I don't always know the answer, but this goes for all institutions, private entities, governments, religions.  If there is a judgement it seems like we should be held accountable for how we act in light of the immorally we encounter.  

If that organization is the Kingdom of God I leave it to God to fix. If God wanted my help to fix it directly he knows where to find me. I am not conceding by the way that the church is engaged in immoral practices.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Depends, I suppose, on how one interprets various scriptures, such as Isaiah 55:8-9 ("My thoughts are not your thoughts ...") and 1 Cor. 2:14 ("The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him ...") and 1 Cor. 1:27 ("Foolish things confound the wise, and weak things confound the mighty ...") and 2 Nephi 27:21 ("I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work ...")

So your answer for why things are the way they are is that only God knows?  Seems like a dodge of actually looking at the evidence.  When President Kimball actually considered the evidence of history on the priesthood ban he became open to change even though it was very difficult for him.  

I think this is part of why some people are attracted to the Snufferite movement because they don't see current claims for revelation and as they research the early church it shows a much different picture.   

If you believe that however things happen, past present and future are just the will of God and we shouldn't question things then why did God give us brains to reason with?  

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, knowing the end from the beginning does not require choices be fixed beforehand.

But you said God put these people in their place ahead of time, so doesn't that make God responsible for the mistakes they make since God knows all, God knows their choices in advance, so isn't God accountable for their choices?  

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But you said God put these people in their place ahead of time, so doesn't that make God responsible for the mistakes they make since God knows all, God knows their choices in advance, so isn't God accountable for their choices?  

No.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If that organization is the Kingdom of God I leave it to God to fix. If God wanted my help to fix it directly he knows where to find me. I am not conceding by the way that the church is engaged in immoral practices.

Outsourcing morality 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No.

Why not?  God knows what people will do in advance and you said God strategically put them there.  Reasonably that makes God accountable for their actions.  

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No that's a Catholic feast day.   Three kings and all that!

 

No, I think you are referring to a euphonium.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why not?  God knows what people will do in advance and you said God strategically put them there.  Reasonably that makes God accountable for their actions.  

Nope. If God had people who would do what they were supposed to He would not have had to start the whole thing.

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Outsourcing morality 

To God. Yeah, I am okay with that.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Exactly, good question.  It doesn't seem like the church really cares how much the father is out of the home as long as it's for something to do with church.   

 

Perhaps, but the temples require more men than women to function properly.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

So your answer for why things are the way they are is that only God knows? Seems like a dodge of actually looking at the evidence.   

 

So anyone who looks at the same evidence you do but weighs it differently and, thus, reaches a different conclusion, simply is "dodging" that evidence?  I don't think so.

Quote

When President Kimball actually considered the evidence of history on the priesthood ban he became open to change even though it was very difficult for him.  

Yes, and when President McKay ... who, from what I understand was perfectly willing to lift the ban, and, in fact, went as far as he could without Divine word on the matter, such as not imposing the ban on non-African blacks ... petitioned the Lord about lifting it, he was told, essentially, "Not yet, and don't ask again."

Quote

I think this is part of why some people are attracted to the Snufferite movement because they don't see current claims for revelation and as they research the early church it shows a much different picture.

Those who remain faithful Latter-day Saints, who have cast their lot with the main body of the Church of Jesus Christ, and who have ears to hear and eyes to see are well aware of the various ways and means by which revelation is operative today in the Church.

Quote

If you believe that however things happen, past present and future are just the will of God and we shouldn't question things then why did God give us brains to reason with?  

In fact, I don't believe that.  That's simply your attributing things to me that I did not write.  Since those are views I do not hold, I see no need to try to defend them.  

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps, but the temples require more men than women to function properly.

That implication is annoying to me. That it's only important for mothers to work in the temple if More women are needed.  It ignores the blessings that come from working in the temple that most if not all mothers could benefit from.

[hope_for_things]

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nope. If God had people who would do what they were supposed to He would not have had to start the whole thing.

Either God doesn't know what choices they will make ahead of time or God is responsible for their choices.  

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

To God. Yeah, I am okay with that.

Again Calvinism.  

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Either God doesn't know what choices they will make ahead of time or God is responsible for their choices.  

Nope.

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Again Calvinism.  

Nope.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Exactly, good question.  It doesn't seem like the church really cares how much the father is out of the home as long as it's for something to do with church.   

 

To the extent this is true (and I don't know that it can be fairly stated the Church doesn't care how much a father is away from home, though fathers often do have demanding callings in the Church) it may have something to do with a concept enunciated in the family proclamation, to wit:

"Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."

That being the case, it stands to reason there would be a priority placed on freeing a mother to be home with her children, given that mothers, as compared to fathers,  are "primarily responsible" for the nurture thereof. 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

That implication is annoying to me. That it's only important for mothers to work in the temple if More women are needed.  It ignores the blessings that come from working in the temple that most if not all mothers could benefit from.

It doesn't show the whole picture either.  While there are positions that can only use men there are a number of positions that almost always staffed by women: workers and volunteers who give directions, take care of children, record ordinances (baptismal is an exception though I'm not sure that man does the whole of it or not) restock clothing shelves, fold laundry, take a new bride and groom to their sealing room, assign lockers, or help hand out clothing etc.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To the extent this is true (and I don't know that it can be fairly stated the Church doesn't care how much a father is away from home, though fathers often do have demanding callings in the Church) it may have something to do with a concept enunciated in the family proclamation, to wit:

"Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."

That being the case, it stands to reason there would be a priority placed on freeing a mother to be home with her children, given that mothers, as compared to fathers,  are "primarily responsible" for the nurture thereof. 

Freeing time for a mother to be at home does not equate to freeing her to be with her children.  If the care and feeding of the house and property is primarily Mom's responsibility, if the care of the meals, laundry, housecleaning, shopping, etc. is primarily Mom's responsibility because Dad is out most days and nights with work and then church callings, Mom may have very little free time with her kids to nurture them.

[Avatar4321]

18 hours 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 should we be sad the past policies existed? Wouldn't it be more prudent to assume the Lord had a reason for them?

[Avatar4321]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So your answer for why things are the way they are is that only God knows?  Seems like a dodge of actually looking at the evidence.  When President Kimball actually considered the evidence of history on the priesthood ban he became open to change even though it was very difficult for him.  

I think this is part of why some people are attracted to the Snufferite movement because they don't see current claims for revelation and as they research the early church it shows a much different picture.   

If you believe that however things happen, past present and future are just the will of God and we shouldn't question things then why did God give us brains to reason with?  

What evidence is there that president Kimball found being open to changing the ban very difficult for him?