Jump to content

A Prophet's Reward and Apostasy of the Church


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

You bring up an interesting question.  Could a black woman marry a white man in the temple prior to 1978?

Would you say that tying Homosexual behavior to the law of Chastity is based on tradition?  Where did the "doctrine" that homosexual relations inside of marriage is against the law of chastity come from?  What prophet received that revelation?  Or is it just based on Bible  verses?

It comes from the fact that there is no such thing as homosexual marriage in the gospel.  No ordinance exists to perform it.  No doctrine has ever been revealed concerning its existence. No scriptual example or teaching.  And no connection to the purpose or design of marriage based on God's establishment of the union.

It violates chastity laws because the gospel doesn't acknowledge such a marriage's existence for there to be relations within.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It comes from the fact that there is no such thing as homosexual marriage in the gospel.  No ordinance exists to perform it.  No doctrine has ever been revealed concerning its existence. No scriptual example or teaching.  And no connection to the purpose or design of marriage based on God's establishment of the union.

It violates chastity laws because the gospel doesn't acknowledge such a marriage's existence for there to be relations within.

Well that kind of answers my question.  But what made the church not acknowledge civil gay marriages as legal and lawful just like all the other civil marriages that are legal and lawful?  That has nothing to do with any ordinances,  Do you think the rejection of those legal marriages is based on the tradition of how homosexual relations are viewed or revelation?  

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well that kind of answers my question.  But what made the church not acknowledge civil gay marriages as legal and lawful just like all the other civil marriages that are legal and lawful?  That has nothing to do with any ordinances,  Do you think the rejection of those legal marriages is based on the tradition of how homosexual relations are viewed or revelation?  

Personally I think they are rejected as an attempt to join two people that don't meet the requirements based in tradition, scripture, and any revelation addressing marriage.  There is simply no such union from a religious perspective.

Which principle is naturally seen to carry over into the temporal version and results in rejecting these new civil unions as not really marriage.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Your sticking to that idea I guess.
I still don't see that it is historically accurate.

The problem is that a number of statements are attributed to Joseph on race, not all of which represent his final thinking on the matter.  This is especially true of History of the Church statements, which were often third person items which he did not say, but which were placed in the first person and attributed to him by the secretaries assembling that history.  Others  are likely to have been opinions given under the pressure of racists threatening the LDS Church in Jackson County, Missouri, where there was a rumor that the LDS were pro-Negro and Abolitionist.  Already in 1833, Joseph had revealed D&C 101:79-80.

Quote

Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.  And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

And after all Joseph had declared that a Negro could be equal to a White man in every respect if given the opportunity at education and freedom.

Quote

"Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on. Elder Hyde remarked, "Put them on the level, and they will rise above me." I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant? […] Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization." (History of the Church, V:216, which you quoted only partially and out of context)

As Wikipedia correctly summarized:

Quote

From the beginning, black people have been members of Mormon congregations, and Mormon congregations have always been interracial. When the Mormons migrated to Missouri, they encountered the pro-slavery sentiments of their neighbors. Joseph Smith upheld the laws regarding slaves and slaveholders, and affirmed the curse of Ham as placing his descendants into slavery, "to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South."[1][2] With that being said, Smith still remained abolitionist in his actions and doctrines. After the Mormons were expelled from Missouri, Smith took an increasingly strong anti-slavery position, and a few black men were ordained to the LDS priesthood.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_early_Mormonism .

Many of the statements which deal with the supposed curse preventing Black men from being ordained to priesthood were not only not observed during Joseph's time but openly flouted -- Black men being allowed to participate in temple rites in Kirtland, and being allowed to do baptism for the dead in Nauvoo.  Moreover, Joseph publicly opposed slavery in his official 1844 Presidential Platform.  This was in stark variance with the practices under Brigham Young.  Like night and day.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, california boy said:

Well that kind of answers my question.  But what made the church not acknowledge civil gay marriages as legal and lawful just like all the other civil marriages that are legal and lawful?  That has nothing to do with any ordinances,  Do you think the rejection of those legal marriages is based on the tradition of how homosexual relations are viewed or revelation?  

Because the Church doesn't accept that they are marriages in reality. Kind of like two left shoes are not really a pair of shoes; more than just two-ness is required.

 

Are you aware of any other situation where the Church has allowed a definition based upon civil law to control its doctrines, to the extent that the doctrine somehow automatically changed whenever (and wherever) the law changed? Because I can't think of any.

You inquired earlier about whether a black woman and a white man could marry in the temple prior to June, 1978. The answer is no, but such couples who married civilly could be members in good standing and hold callings. That's a significant difference.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand your question.  Social pressure regarding the ordination of women seems to be dissipating.  Social pressure regarding same-sex marriage does not seem to be dissipating.  And so far the Church has . . . issued the Proclamation on the Family.  And more recently the Church has re-affirmed the revelatory origins of the Proclamation (Elder Oaks' remarks during this last General Conference).  The Church also issued new guidelines regarding same-sex marriage (the November 2015 policy changes).  And the Church thereafter re-affirmed the revelatory origins of those changes (Pres. Nelson's January 2016 remarks).  The Church has also spent the last several years re-working its overall approach to same-gender attraction, which efforts are more compassionate and loving, but which do not give an inch as to proscribing behavior.

So the Church appears to be accommodating calls for change where possible, but otherwise standing firm as to its doctrines.

The Book of Mormon.

Restored priesthood authority.

Modern prophets and apostles.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

The Church's teachings regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

And on and on and on. 

Polygamy and the Priesthood Ban are outliers.  Exceptions.  The Church has "held fast" to lots of things "in the face of major opposition."

Thanks,

-Smac

I would add cohabitation outside of marriage and casual attitudes toward pre-marital/extramartial sex and divorce to the above list.

 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Gray said:

Correlation/=causation. I think the reason liberal churches are declining is that religion has been branded as a right wing concern.

Many people who study these things think that you're wrong:

Quote

Liberal theology calls clergy and lay people to practice a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible and to temper their belief in supernatural phenomenon in order to make their religious message more palatable for modern audiences.

As a researcher it’s not often you make a discovery that flies in the face of conventional wisdom but, when we finished assessing our data, that’s what happened. We found it is conservative theology — with its emphasis on the factual truth of scripture and God’s activity in the world — that fuels church growth. Liberal theology leads to decline.

...

In the last week or so our findings have been widely reported and, perhaps unsurprisingly, they have also been attacked. Conventional wisdom doesn’t go quietly.

...

The last common assertion of our critics is that some factor besides theology is the real cause of growth.

...

Paradox is intimately and profoundly connected to the Christian experience. Christians are told such things as “the first shall be last” and “to save your life you must lose it.” Now we can add a new paradox to the list: conservative theology leads to church growth and liberal theology leads to decline.

 

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Because the Church doesn't accept that they are marriages in reality. Kind of like two left shoes are not really a pair of shoes; more than just two-ness is required.

I am obviously aware of church policy towards gay marriage.  That is not what I asked.  What I asked is where did this policy towards gay marriage not being accepted come from?  Are church leaders just following tradition and long held beliefs about homosexuality?  I am not questioning the policy.  Nor am I challenging the policy   I am questioning where the policy came from. Where has the policy towards homosexuality at all came from?  Just interpreting bible scripture?  Is any revelation on the subject claimed?

 

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

 

Are you aware of any other situation where the Church has allowed a definition based upon civil law to control its doctrines, to the extent that the doctrine somehow automatically changed whenever (and wherever) the law changed? Because I can't think of any.

You inquired earlier about whether a black woman and a white man could marry in the temple prior to June, 1978. The answer is no, but such couples who married civilly could be members in good standing and hold callings. That's a significant difference.

Of course. Lots of situations.  The church accepts any legally and lawfully marriage as a valid civil marriage from any other country and from any other state.  It is gay civil marriage that is the exception.

Thanks for answering my question concerning black women.  Do you know why a black woman marrying a white mail was not allowed to go to the temple since she is not required to hold the priesthood in order to marry?  Is it just because she is black?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Personally I think they are rejected as an attempt to join two people that don't meet the requirements based in tradition, scripture, and any revelation addressing marriage.  There is simply no such union from a religious perspective.

Which principle is naturally seen to carry over into the temporal version and results in rejecting these new civil unions as not really marriage.

Thanks.  That is what I suspected.  I also think that those restrictions came about from traditional views on homosexuality itself that is part of our culture both within the church and within society around the time the church formed formal opinions on the subject.  There is really very little evidence that God had any input.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would add cohabitation outside of marriage and casual attitudes toward pre-marital/extramartial sex and divorce to the above list.

Yep. Considering all the hail and mighty storm that the Church of Jesus Christ has already faced as a consequence of the Sexual Revolution, I find it illogical to assume that this particular shaft in the exact same whirlwind is the one that will somehow knock us off our sure foundation.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Alan said:

I think it can be successfully argued that the church has already surrendered on such issues in the past. I'm thinking of plural marriage and priesthood ordination, but there may be others

You would have to provide doctrinal references that demonstrate that the church has changed doctrine to follow the pulls of the world. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not sure.  But I think the answer is "no."

No.

Homosexual relations violate the Law of Chastity.  Full stop.  The recent innovation of same-sex marriage does not change that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Once again, I am not questioning the position of the church. I am asking where that position originated from.  Does anyone have any idea?

Link to comment
9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Religion has always been political. I do agree that there has been an unhealthy feedback loop though. i.e. religious favor one party due to some issues but then identity politics make a feedback loop and they embrace policies that might not be as compatible in terms of the sect's theology. I think you definitely have seen that in Evangelicalism and perhaps to a degree with Mormonism. (More so for libertarian Mormons than conservative Mormons)

It goes both ways of course. While Mormons are dominantly Republican it's largely due to political views of liberals on certain social issues like abortion on demand and social norms regarding sexuality. However If a liberal Mormon is liberal due to say social justice issues on class or race they too have a tendency to adopt the group identity's views on things like abortion and the like.

I know the moderators appear to not like political discussions so I'll try and avoid those. While I'm personally quite conservative I do think that how many Mormons have embraced positions of Republicans uncritically is a big problem. Put an other way the Republican party (like the Democratic party) is a coalition between philosophically quite different groups. However what group's policy choices are dominant tends to vary based upon who the leadership is. Clearly Trump is very, very different from George W. Bush for instance. Yet you see for at least a segment of the Church that they tend to defend the currently pushed version of Republicanism - especially that promoted that year by talk radio and Fox News - rather than being more clear about what elements they like or dislike. And again to be very fair when I look at my liberal friends, I often see something quite similar going on.

It's sometimes more helpful to see where people differ from the mainstream of their party and why. But of course difference or even reasons for why they accept the mainstream views can mislead. We're very good at misleading ourselves (myself included) at why we believe something. Typically people will ape the justifications given by the party for why they believe something. What's more interesting is to try and analyze ones inquiry. That is do ones views seem to change as the mainstream of the party changes? If so, then I think we ought be very careful to analyze why we believe what we believe. We might find that's we don't believe for the reasons we think we believe.

I agree with most of what you wrote.  But I also think this only addresses half of the equation.  Churches also sponsor, vigorously support different ballot propositions to the point where the proposition actually becomes identified with religion and sometimes specific churches.  I completely agree that churches have every right to speak up in the town square over propositions, but in doing so, it causes exactly what we are talking about.  Religion becomes identified with different political issues.  If you don't agree with those political positions, then one has to consider whether they want to be identified with organized religion at all.

It is like this.  I was talking with a friend yesterday.  She told me that she refused to every shop at Whole Foods again.  Her reason?  Because the CEO of Amazon who now owns Whole Foods contributed strongly towards the Republican party.  She literally stood outside of Whole Foods while her friend went in to pick up a few things.  Can you see how these same attitudes transfer to organized religion?  Certainly there are those that feel strongly concerning Prop 8 for example that they would absolutely never step foot in a Mormon church because of the Mormons activism in passing Prop 8.  So by the very nature of the church being politically active has excluded part of the population from ever wanting to listen to the message Mormons want to share.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Once again, I am not questioning the position of the church. I am asking where that position originated from.  Does anyone have any idea?

Any idea? Or any idea that you're actually willing to accept?

I suspect they may not be the same thing...

Link to comment
1 minute ago, california boy said:

So by the very nature of the church being politically active has excluded part of the population from ever wanting to listen to the message Mormons want to share.

Unless people are actually open to being wrong and needing to change, literally every single thing the Church says or does is potentially excluding. The only solution would be to say or do nothing ... which of course would then exclude those who might listen to a church that actually has something to to say.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, california boy said:

Yet following the worldly notion that discriminating against someone because of the color of his skin some how was the right thing to do. While leaders held on to tradition and pre conceived views of what they thought was God's opinion..

Do you have any evidence that this is the reason for the ban? Do you understand that the prophet's prayed for many years concerning the matter and God allowed it to continue? 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Freedom said:

Do you have any evidence that this is the reason for the ban? Do you understand that the prophet's prayed for many years concerning the matter and God allowed it to continue? 

I don't think God had anything to do with it. That comes off sounding terrible I know, but sometimes prophets are infallible, and may not have got the message soon enough or the decision made by a prophet was wrong in the first place. 

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks.  That is what I suspected.  I also think that those restrictions came about from traditional views on homosexuality itself that is part of our culture both within the church and within society around the time the church formed formal opinions on the subject.  There is really very little evidence that God had any input.

He also had no input on trees marrying rocks for much the same reasons.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

He also had no input on trees marrying rocks for much the same reasons.

Nice dodge.  This is a little more important to one's salvation than trees marrying rocks.  But hey. I get it.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Any idea? Or any idea that you're actually willing to accept?

I suspect they may not be the same thing...

I am just curious where the attitudes towards homosexuals originated from.  Doesn't mean I am going to agree with them.  Is that necessary to answer the question?

Link to comment
Just now, california boy said:

I am just curious where the attitudes towards homosexuals originated from.  Doesn't mean I am going to agree with them.  Is that necessary to answer the question?

It does seem a bit pertinent considering that you've already rejected the most obvious answer. Do you really want one of us to give it again? And if so, for what possible purpose? :unknw:

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Unless people are actually open to being wrong and needing to change, literally every single thing the Church says or does is potentially excluding. The only solution would be to say or do nothing ... which of course would then exclude those who might listen to a church that actually has something to to say.

Like I said.  I agree fully that the church has ever right to participate in the political arena.  It is just that there is a cost for doing so.  And I think organized religion is paying that cost as more people walk away from organized religion.  There is a big difference between teaching moral issues for example and directly involving a church in the political process.  You really don't see the difference?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It does seem a bit pertinent considering that you've already rejected the most obvious answer. Do you really want one of us to give it again? And if so, for what possible purpose? :unknw:

I know what the position is on homosexual behavior.  And I know the results of that position I am only asking where that position originated from.  Can you point to when that policy started?  Or is it just based on modern interpretations of biblical statements.  

 

So yes.  Please pinpoint where the attitudes towards homosexuality originated from.  I though I was pretty clear in what I was asking.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Nice dodge.  This is a little more important to one's salvation than trees marrying rocks.  But hey. I get it.

Not a dodge.  Marriage agreeable to every scripture, revelation, and any and all words on marriage attributed to God (who established it) is the union of male and female.

Anything else isn't any more of a marriage that the union of tree and rock or dog and cat would be.  It doesn't meet the definition in any way.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...