A Prophet's Reward and Apostasy of the Church

[california boy]

30 minutes 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? 

What is the reason for the ban?  I don't think the church has been that clear for the reason for the ban.

[kiwi57]

52 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?

Well, let's see.

Quote

 

1 Corinthians 6:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteousman, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

 

Here's the thing: until "Gay Liberation" showed up (and started very consciously imitating civil rights rhetoric) the understanding that these passages were referring to homosexual behaviours was simply not controversial.

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The revelation that produced the ban was Abraham 1 and Moses 7.  Joseph translated it, expressed the views contained therein, and all Brigham did was make it Church policy.

My understanding (perhaps incorrect) is that Abraham wasn't used as a justification for the ban until quite late. It was not offered as the initial reason for the ban. I'm open to finding a sermon quoting Abraham 1 to defend the ban. I'd looked last week during a thread on Keepapitchinin and I couldn't find an example prior to the end of the 19th century. (This was relative to a claim in John Gee's recent book) Some point to Pratt's The Seer but that seems very ambiguous and not a good example at all. It seems you don't really see it as a defense until the 1880's well after the ban was in place. 

I've not searched for use of Moses as a defense so I can't comment on that. I'll also fully confess I've just not had time to read the latest scholarship on the priesthood ban so perhaps I'm missing something someone else has discovered the last few years. I'm very skeptical though that the ban was due to those scriptures. Indeed, again not counting stuff written the last 6 years or so, it seems to me second hand information purporting to be from Joseph combined with racist views is a strong but somewhat ambiguous reason to think there was a ban. Part of the problem is that it's hard to say Joseph's ordinations were mistaken when there were several people beyond Abel who were ordained. My personal suspicion is that Joseph was consciously backing off from the abolitionist position to (in his mind) hopefully ease anger towards the Mormons especially in Missouri. That's why you see just prior to the Missouri War statements against abolition. Then you see something again in Nauvoo also when persecution was rising and Missouri was seeking his extradition. My guess is most of that political opportunism that failed. So far as I can tell, despite some similarities to egregious southern apologetic for slavery that is similar to Abraham 1 and Moses 7 that those southern positions aren't a good background for those texts. (For a variety of reasons I can go into if people are interested)

Ultimately I don't think we know why there was a ban. Assuming it was erroneous ultimately rests upon the assumption that Brigham wasn't inspired. That's completely understandable especially for an apologetic explanation. I'm not sure it's necessarily correct. I eagerly await some forthcoming papers coming from carefully examining the short hand of some of Brigham Young's sermons particularly the infamous one at the state house on blacks and slavery. There's supposed to be some evidence that things are more complicated that recent works suggest. (Which is why I'm holding off doing a lot of reading until that work is published)

Edited November 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

My understanding (perhaps incorrect) is that Abraham wasn't used as a justification for the ban until quite late. It was not offered as the initial reason for the ban. I'm open to finding a sermon quoting Abraham 1 to defend the ban. I'd looked last week during a thread on Keepapitchinin and I couldn't find an example prior to the end of the 19th century. (This was relative to a claim in John Gee's recent book) Some point to Pratt's The Seer but that seems very ambiguous and not a good example at all. It seems you don't really see it as a defense until the 1880's well after the ban was in place. 

I've not searched for use of Moses as a defense so I can't comment on that. I'll also fully confess I've just not had time to read the latest scholarship on the priesthood ban so perhaps I'm missing something someone else has discovered the last few years.

Well the PoGP wasn't published until that time.  It probably wasn't widely distributed among the saints.  But the principles contained were quoted by Joseph and Brigham, showing that they were familiar with the content. Looking for direct reference to chapter and verse or even direct quote that early is a strange approach- they barely quoted the Book of Mormon.

It's not like there were Quads floating around.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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.

Really what you are complaining about is people disagreeing with the religion in those cases. For instance most people don't mind the Church's efforts against state sponsored gambling. It's political issues they differ with the church on like abortion or gay marriage. But then is the issue politics or is it theology? After all while the church opposes gay marriage fundamentally the issue is the theology people disagree with.

If we can't clearly distinguish between theology and politics it's hard to really be clear what we're discussing. After all politics might well take a position against a theology and then convinced people to oppose the theology. There's less of that on the right the last while - the main examples are too much of a reliance on guns, too much hunting, the MX missile program and then opposing immigration. On the left though you have strong political opposition to differences based upon sex in terms of leadership and priesthood, support for abortion on demand as a right, support for gay marriage and acceptance of gay relationships, etc.

So from my perspective the real issue is more the rise of the social left that pretty well opposes very long standing theological beliefs and practices. To say that this is the Church being political seems to get the causation backwards. Rather it's people with strong political beliefs demanding theological change. 

In saying that I'm not saying theological positions are always correct. It's not hard to find examples the church has backed away from like the priesthood ban. But let's at least call a spade a spade.

Edited November 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours 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.

What do we do in cases of normal common law marriage in years past?  Marriages without benefit of clergy or civil action were entirely legal, as long as they were consensual.  Most families in the history of humankind have been of that sort, and constituted fully legal marriage, the children being legitimate.  Today we see such things as casual cohabitation, when in my lifetime we still had many states in which common law marriage was in force.  What constituted common law marriage?  Living together for a certain length of time.

Even today in Utah, where common law marriage does not exist, a couple may petition a court to recognize their time together as a legal marriage, even though no ceremony ever took place.

Quote

States that do recognize common law marriage include the following: Alabama, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia (if created prior to 1997), Idaho (if created before 1996), Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only), Ohio (if created prior to 10/1991), Oklahoma, Pennsylvania (if created before 9/2003), Rhode Island, South Carolina,  and Texas.  https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/fact-or-fiction-five-myths-about-common-law-marriage .

I wonder what the LDS position is on common law marriage in the USA, and worldwide.

[Hamba Tuhan]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

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?

I absolutely see a difference. The former involves talking, and the latter involves doing. You no doubt feel very generous by telling us that we should be satisfied with just talking. I hope you may understand when we disagree.

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well the PoGP wasn't published until that time.  It probably wasn't widely distributed among the saints.  But the principles contained were quoted by Joseph and Brigham, showing that they were familiar with the content. Looking for direct reference to chapter and verse or even direct quote that early is a strange approach- they barely quoted the Book of Mormon.

It's not like there were Quads floating around.

It had been published in church magazines though. Especially in England it had been published as well. (Recall that for a while there were more members there than in Utah) But you're probably right that in terms of public defense it's pointless to defend it in terms of media most don't have. However again so far as I know it's not in private stuff either.

I think most agree that the key events in the ban were the James Strang apostasy and competition in the succession crisis. Strang was accompanied by William McCary leading to fairly racist recriminations from people like Orson Pratt. McCary was also in an interracial marriage. It wasn't helped by some very unorthodox teachings by him. Some have speculated that had McCary supported Young and Young's theology that there would have been far less impetus for the ban. But that's very speculative. The second issue, as I mentioned, was the state house debate about slavery. Given that there's new scholarship coming out on that issue I think it might be more complicated. However I think it fair to say that the presumption that Canaanites were African rather than (as we know) Semite is a background to all this. You can't even read Moses or Abraham as having anything to do with blacks and the priesthood unless one first buys into that incorrect southern baptism apologetic for slavery. Worse, Moses married a Cushite who was Ethiopian and thus black. So it requires a great deal of ignoring scripture to make such exegesis. Further the "curse of cain" as black skin and African heritage was, as I understand it, fairly late and was primarily a protestant apologetic especially adopted by Baptists. (Although I think the first popularization of it was by Presbyterians - although I'd have to check to be sure)

Again all this was complicated by Mormons seeking to avoid persecution in Missouri and Illinois.

[Hamba Tuhan]

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

I know what the position is on homosexual behavior ...  Please pinpoint where the attitudes towards homosexuality originated from.  I though I was pretty clear in what I was asking.

So let's consider how this would pan out. I 'pinpoint' that the Church's position on homosexual behaviour began with God Himself, who taught the divine and eternal pattern to His anointed prophets literally from the beginning of time and Who, lest there be any confusion surrounding his past pronouncements, continues to instruct His prophets to boldly declare the doctrines surrounding that pattern in this, the dispensation of the fullness of time.

And then you write something along the lines of, 'There is really very little evidence that God had any input' and plead for someone, anyone to give you an answer you won't just dismiss out of hand.

And then ... what?

Does this sound productive to you? Do you somehow find it enjoyable?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

It had been published in church magazines though. Especially in England it had been published as well. (Recall that for a while there were more members there than in Utah) But you're probably right that in terms of public defense it's pointless to defend it in terms of media most don't have. However again so far as I know it's not in private stuff either.

I think most agree that the key events in the ban were the James Strang apostasy and competition in the succession crisis. Strang was accompanied by William McCary leading to fairly racist recriminations from people like Orson Pratt. McCary was also in an interracial marriage. It wasn't helped by some very unorthodox teachings by him. Some have speculated that had McCary supported Young and Young's theology that there would have been far less impetus for the ban. But that's very speculative. The second issue, as I mentioned, was the state house debate about slavery. Given that there's new scholarship coming out on that issue I think it might be more complicated. However I think it fair to say that the presumption that Canaanites were African rather than (as we know) Semite is a background to all this. You can't even read Moses or Abraham as having anything to do with blacks and the priesthood unless one first buys into that incorrect southern baptism apologetic for slavery. Worse, Moses married a Cushite who was Ethiopian and thus black. So it requires a great deal of ignoring scripture to make such exegesis. Further the "curse of cain" as black skin and African heritage was, as I understand it, fairly late and was primarily a protestant apologetic especially adopted by Baptists. (Although I think the first popularization of it was by Presbyterians - although I'd have to check to be sure)

Again all this was complicated by Mormons seeking to avoid persecution in Missouri and Illinois.

Again  the response seems to be to show why their thinking is wrong.  The Church has already done that with its disavowal.  And that's not something I am arguing against.

What I am pointing out is the existence of that disavowed thinking by Joseph and Brigham both.  Your analysis of that scriptural misinterpretation by Joseph and Brigham may be completely accurate, but they still had it, and I consider that a primary source of the ban.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

What I am pointing out is the existence of that disavowed thinking by Joseph and Brigham both.  Your analysis of that scriptural misinterpretation by Joseph and Brigham may be completely accurate, but they still had it, and I consider that a primary source of the ban.

I'm not sure Joseph held that view. I think he was making political hay with enemies by disavowing abolition and adopting what they saw as a moderate position. That's not the same thing as to buying into Protestant apologetic for slavery, most of which became popularized in the 1850's after Joseph's death. With Brigham Young the situation is more complex. A lot depends upon the transcript of Brigham Young's speech to the legislature there though and that's the very text that may be incorrect. It's in that text that Brigham appeals to the curse of cain theology though. There's a distant claim by Brigham Young attributing to Joseph a curse of Cain theology in 1869 but that's quite late and there are reasons to doubt it as a recollection. However it's definitely clear that Young bought into the curse of cain theology in Utah. Exactly when he accepted it is a bit more complex. I don't know of claims prior to that 1852 sermon to the legislature. It's worth noting that is around the same time the protestant apologetic for slavery became very publicized. So it's possible he'd encountered those writings and read them in light of Moses 7. Whether he did though I simply don't know. I'm open to evidence.

The main argument to attribute the theology of Cain to Joseph is DHC 4:501 where in answering who had received worse treatment Indians or Blacks, Joseph says that the negro are the sons of Cain. So far as I know though that actually wasn't written by Joseph Smith and comes from the 25 Jan 1842 journal entry. I think it was Williard Richards. It's not clear if this is Richards making a comment or a claim by Joseph. It's not in any of the sermons over at the Parallel Joseph. In the Joseph Smith Papers. That said as you noted Moses 7:22 does seen to raise the curse of cain theology. "And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them." However technically that doesn't make the more expansive claim others appealed to which requires conflating the curse of cain from before the deluge with the curse of ham.

Edit: I actually found a 29 June 1851 sermon by Brigham, prior to the legislature speech that discusses it as applying to blacks. That's from the Woodruff journal. I couldn't find it discussed in any earlier sermons. But it's definitely the southern apologia.

Edited November 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Well, let's see.

So basically relying on what is written in the bible 2000.  Yet we have disgarded so many other things taught in the Bible because they the no longer make sense. 

I am just pointing out what I said at the very beginning of this discussion.  It is a policy based on past tradition and history based on cultural attitudes of the day and not modern revelation.  

 

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Here's the thing: until "Gay Liberation" showed up (and started very consciously imitating civil rights rhetoric) the understanding that these passages were referring to homosexual behaviours was simply not controversial.

Kind of like accepting that slavery was ok with God until the abolitionist showed up.

Edited November 2, 2017 by california boy

[kiwi57]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

So basically relying on what is written in the bible 2000.  Yet we have disgarded so many other things taught in the Bible because they the no longer make sense. 

Not really. We understand that large swathes of Old Testament law - particularly the sacrifices, ritual performances and purifications - were fulfilled in the Atonement of Christ. That's actually a matter of doctrine. It's a bit dilettantish to assume that we just ignore them "because they the no longer make sense."

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am just pointing out what I said at the very beginning of this discussion.  It is a policy based on past tradition and history based on cultural attitudes of the day and not modern revelation.  

Umm, Cal? Arguing for a position is not the same as "just pointing out." And no, it's not "based on past tradition and history based on cultural attitudes of the day." It's based on revealed truth, as recorded in the Bible.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Kind of like accepting that slavery was ok with God until the abolitionist showed up.

Not really. Apart from anything else, abolitionism was the result of religious impulses. It's a bit difficult to listen to the parable of the Good Samaritan and suppose that black people aren't your neighbour.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Really what you are complaining about is people disagreeing with the religion in those cases. For instance most people don't mind the Church's efforts against state sponsored gambling. It's political issues they differ with the church on like abortion or gay marriage. But then is the issue politics or is it theology? After all while the church opposes gay marriage fundamentally the issue is the theology people disagree with.

If we can't clearly distinguish between theology and politics it's hard to really be clear what we're discussing. After all politics might well take a position against a theology and then convinced people to oppose the theology. There's less of that on the right the last while - the main examples are too much of a reliance on guns, too much hunting, the MX missile program and then opposing immigration. On the left though you have strong political opposition to differences based upon sex in terms of leadership and priesthood, support for abortion on demand as a right, support for gay marriage and acceptance of gay relationships, etc.

So from my perspective the real issue is more the rise of the social left that pretty well opposes very long standing theological beliefs and practices. To say that this is the Church being political seems to get the causation backwards. Rather it's people with strong political beliefs demanding theological change. 

In saying that I'm not saying theological positions are always correct. It's not hard to find examples the church has backed away from like the priesthood ban. But let's at least call a spade a spade.

Well first of all, I am not complaining about anything.  I am only pointing out that when an organized religion starts campaigning and involving itself in politics, then when someone disagrees with the politics of that religious organization, many decide they can no longer be a part of that religious organization. 

You are painting this as a left/right issue.  But. that is a bit simplistic and not always true.  For example if the church increased its political activism over supporting those that are here in this country illegally, then someone on the right may very well decide that they can no long support that church.  Or if a church decided that we need better gun control, or that (in the far extreme) white people are not superior to other races.  

There was a time when religion may have opinions or teachings against certain issues, but it wasn't until the Pat Robinsons of the world decided that religion could be a major player in politics that things changed.  And that is when what religion you belonged to had to match your political beliefs.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I absolutely see a difference. The former involves talking, and the latter involves doing. You no doubt feel very generous by telling us that we should be satisfied with just talking. I hope you may understand when we disagree.

You know it is really hard to have a reasonable discussion with someone who cuts and pastes snippets of what I say and then makes claims that directly contradict what my point was.  This is the whole quote that you choose to cut the first half off of.  

Quote

 

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?

 

Read the part in bold that you snipped from your reply and then see how your assumption of me is completely off base.  When the agenda  is simply to make me look bad, then you are succeeding by eliminate half of what I said.  But how honest is that?

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

For example if the church increased its political activism over supporting those that are here in this country illegally, then someone on the right may very well decide that they can no long support that church.

So should the Church not campaign for humane treatment of non-documented migrants out of 'fear' that we may exclude xenophobic people on the right? I'm not OK with that.

Quote

 It wasn't until the Pat Robinsons of the world decided that religion could be a major player in politics that things changed.

With all due respect, I suggest you have a rather poor grasp of history here...

[california boy]

19 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Not really. We understand that large swathes of Old Testament law - particularly the sacrifices, ritual performances and purifications - were fulfilled in the Atonement of Christ. That's actually a matter of doctrine. It's a bit dilettantish to assume that we just ignore them "because they the no longer make sense."

Umm, Cal? Arguing for a position is not the same as "just pointing out." And no, it's not "based on past tradition and history based on cultural attitudes of the day." It's based on revealed truth, as recorded in the Bible.

Not really. Apart from anything else, abolitionism was the result of religious impulses. It's a bit difficult to listen to the parable of the Good Samaritan and suppose that black people aren't your neighbour.

If it was just sacrifices, ritual performances and purifications in the Old Testament that the church no longer follows, then you might have a point.  But the church throws out a slew of other Bible scriptures that are even in the New Testament.  For example, women should not wear make up or wear gold jewelry or should not speak in church or should not teach in church or pray in church, or salvery being ok, or divorce is ok when Christ clearly prohibited it  

The church has thrown out a ton of principles taught in the New Testament because it believes it is just past tradition and history based on cultural attitudes of the day.  For some reason, homosexuality stuck.  Because those same cultural attitudes continued until fairly recently.  Look how long it took the church to allow women to offer the prayer in sacrament meeting.  I don't expect traditions against homosexuality within the bonds of marriage to change any time soon.  

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are painting this as a left/right issue.  But. that is a bit simplistic and not always true.

Actually I thought I pointed out the opposite, although most of the big issues today tend to be on the left with the church. But not all of them like immigration.

Quote

Well first of all, I am not complaining about anything.  I am only pointing out that when an organized religion starts campaigning and involving itself in politics, then when someone disagrees with the politics of that religious organization, many decide they can no longer be a part of that religious organization. 

Again though if it's a longstanding moral and theological position the real issue is the person disagreeing for political reasons. I completely agree with you that people will separate over political issues though. My complaint was over the "starts campaigning..." If it's a long standing issue for a group then it's the idea that it's the church that started the change rather than the political group that disagrees with the church. More or less what's happened on many issues is simply politics has changed and now issues that weren't issues in the past have become issues. Go back to around 2000 and both left and right opposed gay marriage. Clinton supported DOMA. Even in 2008 when Obama ran he didn't support gay marriage. Things changed. Likewise immigration wasn't this huge widespread issue on the right at the same time. (I don't want to say it wasn't an issue for anyone - clearly it was just as gay marriage was an issue for some on the left) My point is much more that culture changed rather than religion. Yet the way it gets portrayed is as if religion suddenly came up with this new political position.

Quote

There was a time when religion may have opinions or teachings against certain issues, but it wasn't until the Pat Robinsons of the world decided that religion could be a major player in politics that things changed.  And that is when what religion you belonged to had to match your political beliefs.

I just don't think that's accurate in the least, as the civil rights movement attests.

Now if you're talking about abortion, pornography and a few other issues it's true they weren't issues in the 60's - but mainly because they were already illegal. It was after the supreme court decision on abortion, the decisions on obscenity, normalization of pushing nudity and sex in mainstream media, the normalization of drug use and so forth that religions saw they needed to oppose it. They didn't oppose it prior to that time simply because the status quo already was limiting such things. But even before there were different issues religions took issue with. There was religious activism well before Pat Robinson. 

 

 

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So should the Church not campaign for humane treatment of non-documented migrants out of 'fear' that we may exclude xenophobic people on the right? I'm not OK with that.

With all due respect, I suggest you have a rather poor grasp of history here...

I think you and others are missing the entire point I am making.  Religion can continue to delve into politics all it wants.  It can support issues that it feels are important.  Is all I am saying is there are consequences to taking political positions and campaigning for them.  Perhaps the most obviously example is Prop 8.  The church choose to take over the campaigning for that proposition.  Now 9 years later, the majority of Americans support gay marriage.  So by that very political act, the church has eliminated 60% + of the population that MAY not want anything to do with the church because of that political position.  Of course this is not the only issue churches have taken a political position on.  Those that are against illegal immigration may not want to be a part of a church that supports illegal immigrants.  And the list goes on.  In the end, perhaps only 2% of the population is even able to be a part of the church because only that small percentage aligns up with all the political issues the church has taken.

Is that a problem?  Not at all.  Unless you want to appeal to a broader audience.  I have heard the slowing of church growth is due to increased secularism or just a sign of the wickedness in the last days.  I rarely hear that perhaps the political activism of the church itself may be part of the problem.  Should that change?  Not for me to decide.  Perhaps appealing to a smaller audience is exactly what the church intends to do.  

 

[california boy]

29 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So should the Church not campaign for humane treatment of non-documented migrants out of 'fear' that we may exclude xenophobic people on the right? I'm not OK with that.

With all due respect, I suggest you have a rather poor grasp of history here...

I am not going to tell, nor am I trying to tell what the church should do.  I am only saying that there are consequences to positions and actions.  Why is that such a hard thing to understand.

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am only saying that there are consequences to positions and actions.  Why is that such a hard thing to understand.

It's not hard to understand at all. I think everyone agrees with that point. In fact, I think that agency and accountability might even be central parts of LDS teachings.

What I find  perplexing is your supposed hand-wringing over the Church's commitment to its position vis-à-vis same-sex 'marriage'. You seem to have a driving need to convince us that we should be worried about it too, and when we're not, you just keep bringing up the spectre of Prop 8 and what you see as its presumed consequences thread after thread after thread as if to say, 'Stop it, I tell you, or you'll pay a terrible price!'

Is that such a hard thing to understand?

Edited November 2, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Freedom]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

the evidence tells us otherwise. Kimball prayed long and hard for a very long time seeking for direction and after a long wait, God spoke. God, being God, could have changed this policy at any time. It is easy to paint a picture from current sensitivities, but we just do not know. 

[Freedom]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

What is the reason for the ban?  I don't think the church has been that clear for the reason for the ban.

It is unknown but lots of things are unknown. You can speculate all you want, and pretend you somehow have insight into the minds of the leaders of the church, but all you really have is a desire to find evil where none exists. 

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Freedom said:

It is unknown but lots of things are unknown. You can speculate all you want, and pretend you somehow have insight into the minds of the leaders of the church, but all you really have is a desire to find evil where none exists. 

What makes you make such a statement about what I believe?  Suggesting that church leaders were influenced by cultural beliefs and tradition is now an evil belief?  Do you know how many faithful church members have that same belief?  Are you stating that they desire to find evil as well?  

 

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It's not hard to understand at all. I think everyone agrees with that point. In fact, I think that agency and accountability might even be central parts of LDS teachings.

What I find  perplexing is your supposed hand-wringing over the Church's commitment to its position vis-à-vis same-sex 'marriage'. You seem to have a driving need to convince us that we should be worried about it too, and when we're not, you just keep bringing up the spectre of Prop 8 and what you see as its presumed consequences thread after thread after thread as if to say, 'Stop it, I tell you, or you'll pay a terrible price!'

Is that such a hard thing to understand?

Well first of all, I didn't start this thread.  And second of all, I absolutely do think that the church supporting Prop 8 was a watershed decision that put the church on a course where people both within the church to some degree and certainly outside the church no longer have any desire to hear the missionary message of the church.  Do you remember when the California missions were the highest baptizing missions in the church.  What happened.  Did California change or did the church?  Or a little of both.  The one thing I do know is that the church has made it more difficult for many to be a part of it.  I live in California.  I know the hostility that exists against the church still to this day because of Prop 8.  If you want to really know what people think of the political stances of the Mormon church, come to California and tell people that you used to be a Mormon.  They will gladly tell you what they honestly feel about Prop 8 and the church.  To take a position that it has not affected the church one bit is wishful thinking.  Yeah, I am just stating the obvious.  There are consequences.