A Prophet's Reward and Apostasy of the Church

[california boy]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

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.

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. 

 

 

I think you bring up some good points.  Though I still think the movement that started to identify christian religion with a particular political party was the whole Moral Majority movement in the 80's.  Take a look at what wikipedia says about this movement.  I think there are definitely some Christian churches who have made it much more difficult to stay involved because of conflicting political beliefs.  And as a result, I believe that politics is one of the major causes of this mass exodus away from organized religion.  Just my opinion and the reasons I hear from people who no longer want any part of organized religion.

[california boy]

9 hours 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 suggesting what the church should do or what the church should not do.  I am only suggesting that there are consequences for taking a stand on political issues that others disagree with.  And I am suggesting that the politicalizing of religion started in the late 80's with the whole moral majority movement.  While that specific movement faded out, the politicalizing of religion has continued.  If you disagree with a church's political beliefs, it is difficult to identify with it's members

[clarkgoble]

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you bring up some good points.  Though I still think the movement that started to identify christian religion with a particular political party was the whole Moral Majority movement in the 80's.  Take a look at what wikipedia says about this movement.  I think there are definitely some Christian churches who have made it much more difficult to stay involved because of conflicting political beliefs.  And as a result, I believe that politics is one of the major causes of this mass exodus away from organized religion.  Just my opinion and the reasons I hear from people who no longer want any part of organized religion.

I agree with that. Although I think as much as anything that was due to there being in the postwar era a lot of diversity in the parties. After the last big cultural evolution in the late 60's you started to see the polarization by issues begin. But even then, partially due to conservative southern Democrats being a de facto third party,  you didn't see the big polarization until the 90's. The rise of the so called moral majority by Evangelicals and conservative Catholics primarily over sexual issues and abortion began in the 70's and really got going under Reagan. Combined with this though was the simultaneous polarization on the left. Abortion is the obvious example of this. Yes there were pro-life people on the left and pro-choice people on the right (particularly with libertarians). But by and large candidates found abortion to be a litmus test. Thus you soon had no pro-life candidates on the left and none on the right. That meant inexorably that for religions that was an issue for they became tied only to one party.

Now for a while because religions often had multiple issues they worried about there still was a split. Think say Catholics with a focus on social justice but also abortion. However the feedback mechanisms I mentioned tended to lead to more party unity of a degree. The coalitions were still in play but again the candidates often has less variety. Underneath the parties though things were much more fractious with the candidates obscuring what voters believed. That's why you could have this major shift in the parties this last election. Many didn't care about what party elites wanted. (Think Bernie's more socialist populist move and Trump's appealing to a populist movement very much at odds with say Tea Party populism) That in turn, depending upon how it develops, may shift the religious focus on religion. Right now theologically liberal tend to be politically liberal and vice versa. But I think you can see for example Mormon discomfort with Trump potentially leading to a break if Trump successfully reshapes the party.

Where I differ from you though is to not see this through a party lens but through a shifting social value lens. That is we're in an other period of rapid social change akin to the late 60's. It's not so much that politics are driving people away from religion as that changing social values are driving people away from organizations associated with older values. However those moving away from organized religion often are not just changing based upon topics like acceptance of homosexuality. (After all the values on those are rapidly changing even for religious believers) Rather you're seeing broader shifts on the very idea of religion and the rise of what some term quasi-religious secular movements. (Especially via the internet) Yet the odd thing you leave out of the discussion is how those leaving organized religion are actually leaving social engagement entirely. There's a very strong correlation there. So you don't just see a move away from church going but also things like belonging to sports leagues or participating in other local organizations. That's why I think the shift is much deeper not only of parties but of politics entirely.

Edited November 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

............................................... 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.

Correct.  All this was exacerbated by the mistaken belief that Cain (Qain) and Canaan (Kena’an) were somehow related – similar in English, but utterly different in Hebrew and in genealogy. In fact, the Canaanites were Western Semites, speaking the same language and having the same DNA as the Hebrews, Phoenicians, Ammonites, and Moabites, which is still largely true today.

Indeed, the Primeval History in Genesis is already archaic and mythical when received by the  Proto-Hebrews of Moses’ time.  The stories are etiological (explanatory of the origins of peoples), and vastly simplify far more complex facts of pre-history.  In fact, in most cases the stories are paralleled by far more ancient stories from Sumero-Akkadian Mesopotamia, as well as by the Hurrian and Hittite cultures to the north.

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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)

Not necessarily:  Yes, she may have been a woman of Nubian or Ethiopian extraction (Ethiopians, by the way, are strangely enough largely Caucasian -- https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/caucasian-africans/ ).

However, the Kushite whom Moses married may more likely have been a woman from Midian.  In fact, Cushan was a name for Midian, which was ruled by Moses' father-in-law.  See Habakkuk 3:7 (cf. Ex 2:21, Num 10:29, 12:1).  Midian was east of Aqaba and perhaps near Wadi Rumm in present-day southern Jordan and northwestern Saudia – the northern Hijaz -- where the Israelites spent 40 years before entering Canaan.  So the objection of Zipporah may have been to his taking of a second wife.

As to Christian complicity in slavery, the Anglicans were in the thick of it:

Quote

One of the founders of the [Anglican] Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England, Thomas Thompson, who had worked among negroes in New Jersey, and then spent four years in Guinea, 'to make a trial with the Natives', wrote The African Trade for Negro Slaves shown to be Consistent with the Principles of Humanity and the Laws of Revealed Religion [1772], setting out the kind of case made by southern state Christians in the 1840s and 1850s. In fact the SPG itself actually owned slaves in Barbados.  (Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, 445, online at http://cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/_extra authors/Johnson, Paul/A History Of Christianity.pdf )

 

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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

Certainly true.

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct.  All this was exacerbated by the mistaken belief that Cain (Qain) and Canaan (Kena’an) were somehow related – similar in English, but utterly different in Hebrew and in genealogy. In fact, the Canaanites were Western Semites, speaking the same language and having the same DNA as the Hebrews, Phoenicians, Ammonites, and Moabites, which is still largely true today.

So dumb this down for me.
Are we saying that Canaanites were Semitic (therefore descended from Shem)?  Instead of as the scriptures say Hamitic (descended from Ham).

Or are we simply speaking linguistics here which doesn't necessarily show lineage.
Because according to scripture, not mistaken belief, Canaan was the son of Ham and Egyptus.  
Although I do agree scripture never specifies any lineal connection between Egyptus and Cain.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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

 

That doesn't really address my point. Yes, theologically conservative congregations are growing, or at least shrinking less quickly. The problem, I think, is that many of the liberals have already given up on religion, and the churches that try to bring them back by rejecting fundamentalism only alienate their conservative congregants. 

Regarding the relative success of conservative congregations, I'll say, with tongue ever so slightly in cheek, that itching ears will always yearn toward scratching fingers.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/no-religion-pew-report_n_1949598.html

 

Quote

But most of the nones said they believe churches can do good in society by bringing together communities and helping the poor, according to the report. A significant majority of the nones also believe that religious institutions are too focused on money, power, rules and politics.

“The rise of the nones [coincides] with the fall of American Protestantism,” said Smith. He noted that for the first time since Pew begin conducting religion surveys, fewer than half of Americans (48 percent) now identify as Protestant.

 

[clarkgoble]

44 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not necessarily:  Yes, she may have been a woman of Nubian or Ethiopian extraction (Ethiopians, by the way, are strangely enough largely Caucasian -- https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/caucasian-africans/ ).

However, the Kushite whom Moses married may more likely have been a woman from Midian.  In fact, Cushan was a name for Midian, which was ruled by Moses' father-in-law.  See Habakkuk 3:7 (cf. Ex 2:21, Num 10:29, 12:1).  Midian was east of Aqaba and perhaps near Wadi Rumm in present-day southern Jordan and northwestern Saudia – the northern Hijaz -- where the Israelites spent 40 years before entering Canaan.  So the objection of Zipporah may have been to his taking of a second wife.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. I'd always read Cush was Ethiopia and assumed they were similar to contemporary Ethiopians.

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Are we saying that Canaanites were Semitic (therefore descended from Shem)?  Instead of as the scriptures say Hamitic (descended from Ham).

Or are we simply speaking linguistics here which doesn't necessarily show lineage.
Because according to scripture, not mistaken belief, Canaan was the son of Ham and Egyptus.  
Although I do agree scripture never specifies any lineal connection between Egyptus and Cain.

I think there are reasons to be leery of Genesis genealogy. At a minimum even if one is a literalist there's the traditional issue of small populations entering large populations. Most literalists read all these accounts as there being only a few dozen people and accounting for all the people. However as with the Book of Mormon that's pretty dubious. Genesis 9:18 does say Ham is the father of Canaan. However Abraham is talking about a different genealogy and focuses on the daughter of Egyptus and Ham.

From an archaeological and anthropology perspective there's not a lot of difference between pre-exilic Jews and Canaanites. The traditions were very mixed with a lot of very similar beliefs. Effectively they were the same people. When Moses led people out of Egypt to Israel there were already people there. It's extremely doubtful all of them were killed (just as with the Jaredite or Nephite destructions). My own personal view is that I'm fine with children of Ham and Egyptus entering the areas but there were already people there. For certain periods in Egypt, for instance, you had semetic people ruling at least parts of the land.

In any case the American protestant assumption that canaanites were African is wrong. Canaanites were the people living around Israel who weren't Jews. 

As for the pre-flood Canaanites a lot depends upon your assumptions regarding the history. Again we should be careful with the Book of Moses which are modifications to the book of Genesis and not a complete independent revelation. If, as Joseph taught, Adam through Noah lived in America then the Canaanites discussed were a native American group and not a group in the middle east.

The Book of Abraham doesn't say Canaan is Egyptus' son. It's possible it's familiar with the Genesis 9 tradition but it's not clear. Rather it says that Pharoah "was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth." It's not clear if this means the pre-Noah Canaanites, Canaan the son of Ham of Genesis 9:18 or the Canaanites around Israel. I take it to mean that the Pharoah Abraham dealt with was one of the Semetic rules of part of Egypt and came originally from the Canaanites or the area around Israel or Jordan today. There's two Pharoahs discussed in Abraham 1. The first is the one Abraham is dealing with. The other appears to describe an earlier conquest of Egypt as understood by Abraham by the daughter of Ham and Egyptus. The curse talked of in this chapter appears to be the Ham curse not the curse of Cain. (Gen 9:22) What went on with Noah and Ham isn't clear to me because the short description in Genesis seems woefully incomplete.

[clarkgoble]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

That doesn't really address my point. Yes, theologically conservative congregations are growing, or at least shrinking less quickly. The problem, I think, is that many of the liberals have already given up on religion, and the churches that try to bring them back by rejecting fundamentalism only alienate their conservative congregants. 

Regarding the relative success of conservative congregations, I'll say, with tongue ever so slightly in cheek, that itching ears will always yearn toward scratching fingers.

While there's an element of truth to that, I think you downplay the more liberal protestant sects too much. Many of whom just haven't had many conservative (socially) congregants for quite some time. There's an argument to be made that what's really killing these mainline protestant sects is simply low birthrates and kids leaving religion along with not attracting enough new members. I'm not sure alienating conservatives is the big issue anymore and hasn't been for a while.

I think you're right that liberals (politically) are giving up on religion. Although there's still a sizable liberal religious population.  An interesting trend the last few years, especially the last year, is the rise of activism by liberal sects - partially due to the Trump effect I suspect. Whether that'll have an effect on self-identified liberal religiosity isn't clear yet. There's a case to be made that if liberal religions were more activist political in a noticeable way that perhaps they could attract liberal Nones back. Whether that proves to be the case we'll have to wait to see.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's interesting. I didn't know that. I'd always read Cush was Ethiopia and assumed they were similar to contemporary Ethiopians.

I forgot to mention that Midian is Kwšw in the Egyptian Execration Texts (G. Posener in Cambridge Ancient History, 3^rd ed., I/2:554-555).

In addition, I have etymologized Book of Mormon Pachus as PЗ-KЗš “He-of-Kush, The-Kushite,”[1] with definite article prefixed (note variant spelling KЗs), a name which continues into Ptolemaic Demotic usage as PЗ-ikš, PЗ-igš(З) > Greek Pakusis, Coptic Pekōš.[2]  

---

[1] Name of a priest of Amon (wood Sarcophagus at the Hermitage, in St Petersburg), photo online at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Egyptian_Sarcophagus_Hermitage.jpg .

[2] Demotic name references provided by John Gee; cf. G. Vittmann, “Personal Names: Function and Significance,” 4, UEE, online at http://escholarship.org/uc/item/42v9x6xp .

[california boy]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I agree with that. Although I think as much as anything that was due to there being in the postwar era a lot of diversity in the parties. After the last big cultural evolution in the late 60's you started to see the polarization by issues begin. But even then, partially due to conservative southern Democrats being a de facto third party,  you didn't see the big polarization until the 90's. The rise of the so called moral majority by Evangelicals and conservative Catholics primarily over sexual issues and abortion began in the 70's and really got going under Reagan. Combined with this though was the simultaneous polarization on the left. Abortion is the obvious example of this. Yes there were pro-life people on the left and pro-choice people on the right (particularly with libertarians). But by and large candidates found abortion to be a litmus test. Thus you soon had no pro-life candidates on the left and none on the right. That meant inexorably that for religions that was an issue for they became tied only to one party.

Now for a while because religions often had multiple issues they worried about there still was a split. Think say Catholics with a focus on social justice but also abortion. However the feedback mechanisms I mentioned tended to lead to more party unity of a degree. The coalitions were still in play but again the candidates often has less variety. Underneath the parties though things were much more fractious with the candidates obscuring what voters believed. That's why you could have this major shift in the parties this last election. Many didn't care about what party elites wanted. (Think Bernie's more socialist populist move and Trump's appealing to a populist movement very much at odds with say Tea Party populism) That in turn, depending upon how it develops, may shift the religious focus on religion. Right now theologically liberal tend to be politically liberal and vice versa. But I think you can see for example Mormon discomfort with Trump potentially leading to a break if Trump successfully reshapes the party.

Where I differ from you though is to not see this through a party lens but through a shifting social value lens. That is we're in an other period of rapid social change akin to the late 60's. It's not so much that politics are driving people away from religion as that changing social values are driving people away from organizations associated with older values. However those moving away from organized religion often are not just changing based upon topics like acceptance of homosexuality. (After all the values on those are rapidly changing even for religious believers) Rather you're seeing broader shifts on the very idea of religion and the rise of what some term quasi-religious secular movements. (Especially via the internet) Yet the odd thing you leave out of the discussion is how those leaving organized religion are actually leaving social engagement entirely. There's a very strong correlation there. So you don't just see a move away from church going but also things like belonging to sports leagues or participating in other local organizations. That's why I think the shift is much deeper not only of parties but of politics entirely.

Very thought provoking post.  Thanks for posting it.  I can certainly see how these issues are more broad based than simply turning from religion because of political positions.  I am sure my perspective gets distorted living in California where there is still a lot of dislike for the Mormon church because of Prop 8.  It makes it seem like such a major issue in keeping people from wanting anything to do with the church.  But I am guessing that in a more conservative environment there is little if any blowback.  Though there still may be people leaving religion for entirely different reasons.

I found this article from the Pew institute that supports a lot of what you are saying about a more broad issue than just religion.  But it also directly points to religion as being a major impact on the choice to stay in organized religion based on political views.  From the article

Quote

What we see across all denominations is a gap emerging between politically liberal and moderate young people and leadership among conservative churches who are taking political positions on abortion, gay marriage and other social issues.

When that happens, people who are politically liberal and not active in a particular church often put distance between themselves and organized religion by answering “none of the above” to questions about religious preference. Moderates show the same tendency, just not as clearly. As a consequence, in the most recent General Social Survey (2014), 31% of political liberals who were raised in a religion had no religious preference compared to just 6% of political conservatives.

So the issue definitely is a bigger issue in politically liberal areas of the country than more conservative areas.  I also think this point is important to keep in mind.

Quote

I think people assume that people who do not belong to an organized religious group reject religion altogether. But many “nones” believe in God and heaven. And spiritual experiences are still attractive for people who don’t go to church. Some people find God in the woods rather than in a church.

 

And there is this data from the article that Gray posted.

Quote

A significant majority of the nones also believe that religious institutions are too focused on money, power, rules and politics.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by california boy

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So dumb this down for me.
Are we saying that Canaanites were Semitic (therefore descended from Shem)?  Instead of as the scriptures say Hamitic (descended from Ham).

Or are we simply speaking linguistics here which doesn't necessarily show lineage.
Because according to scripture, not mistaken belief, Canaan was the son of Ham and Egyptus.  
Although I do agree scripture never specifies any lineal connection between Egyptus and Cain.

As you know, Cain was the son of Adam & Eve and got  himself cursed.  However, that is completely unrelated to Canaan, which is a very different problem.  Ham and Egyptus (Zeptah) are merely words meaning "Egypt," so one has to be very careful about what assumptions are made about Abraham's actual scientific knowledge about such ancient ancestry.  This has more to do with mythical etiology than with race or linguistics.  As the late Frank Moore Cross, Jr., said:

Quote

    The patriarchal traditions were an integral element in Israel’s early epic (although it must be said that the history of the patriarchs has been vastly expanded by later accretions before achieving its present agglutinative mass).  Much of the patriarchal lore is very old, some of it reaching back, perhaps, into the Middle Bronze Age.  As an epic cycle it evidently existed prior to the epic materials recounting exodus, covenant, and conquest.  There is, on the other hand, no reason to believe that the bundle of exodus, Sinai, and conquest themes ever existed detached from or separated from patriarchal epic tradition – save in its purely mythic prototype.  Cross, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1998), 47.

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I found this article from the Pew institute that supports a lot of what you are saying about a more broad issue than just religion.  But it also directly points to religion as being a major impact on the choice to stay in organized religion based on political views.  From the article

So the issue definitely is a bigger issue in politically liberal areas of the country than more conservative areas.  I also think this point is important to keep in mind.

Again just to be clear where I differ with that article is over whether we should call this political. The actual phenomena I agree with completely.

Quote

A significant majority of the nones also believe that religious institutions are too focused on money, power, rules and politics.

Again I'd probably quibble with the way this is framed. It's not that they are too focused on such things so much as they don't like how they are applied. After all liberals who want to spend money on healthcare, redistribute money, and so forth are focused on money. They just have a very different idea of economics. Liberals want to exercise power, just in a different way. Liberals want rules - just different rules. That's why we should be careful taking at face value such terms.

[kiwi57]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

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. 

Which means, of course, that they are putting politics ahead of their faith.

Which they have a right to do, but it shows that their faith commitment isn't very strong to begin with. And if that's the case, isn't it better to find out sooner rather than later?

17 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

I think that's a fairly significant over-simplification of things.

[kiwi57]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

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

As near as I can tell, the Church requires formal marriage. Here in NZ, people living together in "domestic partnerships" have to get married (or separate) if they want to get baptized.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

As near as I can tell, the Church requires formal marriage. Here in NZ, people living together in "domestic partnerships" have to get married (or separate) if they want to get baptized.

It was the same when I was on my mission in Sweden (and when my son was there more recently). Those living in such arrangements , even though it was a common thing and had been for many generations, were required to be married before they could be baptized. Some such couples had several children.

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

Regarding the relative success of conservative congregations, I'll say, with tongue ever so slightly in cheek, that itching ears will always yearn toward scratching fingers.

You just reminded me of an experience from my mission in America. One morning my companion and I met a woman on the street who was a priest in a mainline Protestant church. In the course of the conversation, she boasted that she prepared three different sermons for three different worship services each Sunday. The morning service, she explained, was attended by mostly conservative members, and she still preached from the Bible. A midday service attracted moderates, and she preached a blend of inoffensive Christian ethics mixed with progressive politics. The last service  -- her favourite -- was primarily attended by progressive members, and she just preached 'social justice' and other left-wing political causes. She was very proud of her ability to give her parishioners exactly what they wanted, though she made it clear that she found preparing and delivering her morning sermon a bit of a chore.

I just checked the stats from this church. Between 2005 and 2015, they experienced a 26 per cent drop in attendance, and last year they closed 46 parishes.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You just reminded me of an experience from my mission in America. One morning my companion and I met a woman on the street who was a priest in a mainline Protestant church. In the course of the conversation, she boasted that she prepared three different sermons for three different worship services each Sunday. The morning service, she explained, was attended by mostly conservative members, and she still preached from the Bible. A midday service attracted moderates, and she preached a blend of inoffensive Christian ethics mixed with progressive politics. The last service  -- her favourite -- was primarily attended by progressive members, and she just preached 'social justice' and other left-wing political causes. She was very proud of her ability to give her parishioners exactly what they wanted, though she made it clear that she found preparing and delivering her morning sermon a bit of a chore.

I just checked the stats from this church. Between 2005 and 2015, they experienced a 26 per cent drop in attendance, and last year they closed 46 parishes.

Talk about being true to yourself and finding it out the hard way...Wow...how could she do this and remain sane??

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Talk about being true to yourself and finding it out the hard way...

I should have clarified that it's the entire denomination that is in terminal decline.

Quote

Wow...how could she do this and remain sane??

I asked her a somewhat milder version of that question. Like I said, she was proud of it. And it was just a job for her. The seminary for this denomination was located across the street from our mission office, and as a courtesy, they sent us their newsletter. I remember seeing in one that they had polled their current seminarians, and 1/3 of them were firm believers in God, 1/3 of them were agnostic, and 1/3 of them were atheists. For the priest that I spoke to, I suspect her role was tolerable because it was a way to get paid to advance her political agenda, but I'm just guessing at that point.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Freedom]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

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?  

 

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. I said you are trying to find evil where none exists, not that any given belief is evil. Tell me, why is it that God would not change the policy when the brethren were praying to change it for many years? 

[kiwi57]

On 11/2/2017 at 1:28 AM, 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

People have tried to argue that. So far - especially as regards Priesthood ordination - I have yet to see any argument that has even a chance of persuading anyone who has some actual information on the subject.

[kiwi57]

On 11/2/2017 at 5:52 AM, JLHPROF said:

No, the Church held fast on doctrines that society opposed only until the pressure from without and within reached a tipping point.
Joseph F. Smith held fast on the garments until members started altering them and refusing to wear them.  Then Heber J. Grant changed them.
The Church held fast on the endowment until enough objection was heard from people to certain elements and then President Benson changed them.
The Church always holds fast until enough members don't want them to and outside threats reach a certain point.

If the Church's membership numbers were to drop fast enough and the government put pressure on them as it did in the polygamy era (disincorporation etc) I will guarantee you that equal ordination of women and possibly same sex marriage would happen in the Church.
You'd have a repeat of what Wilford Woodruff stated:

• The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage (prohibit same-sex marriage), with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice (allow same-sex marriage) and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

  The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not (allow this practice) stop this practice. If we had not (allowed it) stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice.

Book of Mormon, priesthood, apostles/prophets, etc are theological and while some traditional christians may object, society doesn't care that we believe in them.
The Proclamation on Family, homosexuality teachings etc have only become issues in the past few decades so that doesn't address my point either.

So do you seriously contemplate a possible future in which the US government is so seriously tyrannical as to initiate another anti-Mormon pogrom solely in order to force the Church to solemnize immoral relationships under the guise of marriages?

Granted that, at the behest of the New Privileged Class, the US can no longer usefully describe itself as a (let alone "the") land of the free; but so far all of the heavy-handed state interventions against religious freedom have been to prohibit some practice the state has decided it can't tolerate. Are there any precedents you are aware of in which the state has intervened to impose a practice to which a church has a principled objection?

 

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

So do you seriously contemplate a possible future in which the US government is so seriously tyrannical as to initiate another anti-Mormon pogrom solely in order to force the Church to solemnize immoral relationships under the guise of marriages?

Granted that, at the behest of the New Privileged Class, the US can no longer usefully describe itself as a (let alone "the") land of the free; but so far all of the heavy-handed state interventions against religious freedom have been to prohibit some practice the state has decided it can't tolerate. Are there any precedents you are aware of in which the state has intervened to impose a practice to which a church has a principled objection?

 

I don't think the government will be the deciding factor.  It will be the members.  I think an honest appraisal of Church history shows that.

[kiwi57]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think the government will be the deciding factor.  It will be the members.  I think an honest appraisal of Church history shows that.

If all the members were to demand same sex "marriage," that would be apostasy of the Church.

(Thank you for bringing us back to to topic at hand.)

Fortunately, it will never be all the members. It will only ever be those members who have chosen to take up residence in the Great and Spacious Building.

Edited November 3, 2017 by kiwi57

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

If all the members were to demand same sex "marriage," that would be apostasy of the Church.

(Thank you for bringing us back to to topic at hand.)

Fortunately, it will never be all the members. It will only ever be those members who have chosen to take up residence in the Great and Spacious Building.

History has shown that the Church is great about resisting external pressures to change, for decades and more if needed.

It has also shown that the Church is not so great about resisting internal pressures.  (The garments and temple are great examples of this).

If we reach a point where let's say 75% of members (random number) think the Church should ordain women to the priesthood and routinely say so you mark my words, it'll happen.
Estimates put SSM approval among members upwards of 25%.  The so called "November policy" has shaken many, many members who are in that category.

But the bottom line is where the members all go, the Church follows.  The leaders would never allow mass membership reduction.
But I agree - it will never be all the members.  It wasn't all the members that stopped living plural marriage either.

Edited November 3, 2017 by JLHPROF