kiwi57 Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 (edited) 47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I disagree. According to this newsroom article it wouldn't qualify as doctrine. And one of the brethren gave a talk a few years in GC, calling it doctrine and that word was redacted when they published the talk on LDS.org. How would you explain that event? Definitely not doctrine at this point in my opinion. The fifteen prophets, seers and revelators who wrote it disagree with you. Quote https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine It's a joint statement of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. Furthermore, every word in it is existing doctrine already found in the Standard Works. Quote I have plenty of better alternatives, alternatives has never been an issue. I also believe these alternatives are compatible with the law of Chastity. They aren't apostates to me. That's fine; they don't have to be apostates to you. They haven't apostatized from the Church of HFT, they've apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ. The Church has definitively declared that only man-woman marriage is acceptable and they've consciously chosen to not only reject that, but to publicly flout it. If that's not apostasy, then there's probably no such thing. Quote I believe designating them as apostates is in violation of many of the teachings of Jesus and that is part of why this policy is so pernicious. What should the church do, "suffer the little children to come unto me." Baptize them, feed them, treat them as equals, treat all homosexuals and LGBT individuals as equals and inherently good, and don't condemn them or ostracize them. Teach sexual fidelity in marriage between two consenting adults. Quit using binary terms for gender and quit the binary thinking all together. IOW, rewrite the Law of Chastity and redefine marriage to make non-compliers feel better. Accepting, as we do, that this is not an option, have you got any ideas that might actually work? Baptism is a binding covenant with God that, among other things, entails obeying the commandments as they are, not as you think they ought to be. Quote All are alike unto God, all are the children of God, all are loved and of divine worth and are created in God's image. And all have to obey the same commandments. There are no "special" exemptions for "special" people. Quote Teach the beauty of the gospel instead of the fear of tribalism. We already do. Edited January 4, 2018 by kiwi57 1
hope_for_things Posted January 4, 2018 Author Posted January 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Calm said: "Quit using binary terms for gender and quit the binary thinking all togethe" Does this include dropping the terms heterosexual and homosexual as they are pretty binary. I would suggest starting with a recognition that those terms are general terms, but that there is a spectrum with respect to sexual identity and gender identity. Empathy and humility are the key. Recognize that not everyone experiences things exactly alike. These are all things we can learn more about as we expose ourselves to the many experiences of others, and learn that there is so much variety in this wonderful world. No two snowflakes are alike.
hope_for_things Posted January 4, 2018 Author Posted January 4, 2018 4 minutes ago, CV75 said: I see neither assimilation nor retrenchment, but continued progress. Of course, progress can be framed as either, but I see the Church becoming better known. I'm not sure you understand what he meant by those terms assimilation and retrenchment. For a quick primer on some of these concepts read the attached essay. And for more detailed review, I suggest Armand Mauss's award winning book Angel and the Beehive. https://www.uvu.edu/religiousstudies/docs/msc_mauss_struggle.pdf
hope_for_things Posted January 4, 2018 Author Posted January 4, 2018 5 minutes ago, Calm said: And some prefer creating conflict where there is none. And some prefer the position of peanut gallery. To each his own.
kiwi57 Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Depends how you define revelation. There are very literal/fundamentalist perspectives about revelation and there are very naturalist perspectives about revelation and combinations between the two all along the spectrum. I believe inspiration is largely in the eyes of the beholder, and a subjective measurement. Well, there are still those of us in the Church who believe inspiration comes from God. 14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I like the Alma 32 method to determine the fruits of these actions after the fact. So far the fruits of the proclamation taste bad to me. I rather suspect that the revisionist version of "the Alma 32 method" is a pretty serious misinterpretation. The "experiment" Alma asks for is that we "give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart." It is not that we measure it against our pre-existing notions and accept or reject it on that basis. 1
kiwi57 Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I would suggest starting with a recognition that those terms are general terms, but that there is a spectrum with respect to sexual identity and gender identity. Empathy and humility are the key. Recognize that not everyone experiences things exactly alike. These are all things we can learn more about as we expose ourselves to the many experiences of others, and learn that there is so much variety in this wonderful world. No two snowflakes are alike. But they seem to be quite unanimous about how mean the Church is being to them...
hope_for_things Posted January 4, 2018 Author Posted January 4, 2018 6 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: The fifteen prophets, seers and revelators who wrote it disagree with you. Really, care to provide evidence that they disagree with me? Why was the word doctrine redacted after GC? Also are you mind reader? 7 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: It's a joint statement of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. Furthermore, every word in it is existing doctrine already found in the Standard Works. Absurd. Much of it was created whole cloth and has nothing to do with scripture or even earlier church precedent. 8 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: That's fine; they don't have to be apostates to you. They haven't apostatized from the Church of HFT, they've apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ. The Church has definitively declared that only man-woman marriage is acceptable and they've basically given the Church the middle finger. If that's not apostasy, then there's probably no such thing. You have a right to your opinions, but I find these kind of comments offensive, and I'll kindly ask you to tone it down or stop commenting on this thread. 11 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: IOW, rewrite the Law of Chastity and redefine marriage to make non-compliers feel better. Accepting, as we do, that this is not an option, have you got any ideas that might actually work? Baptism is a binding covenant with God that, among other things, entails obeying the commandments as they are, not as you think they ought to be. If the church can get rid of polygamy, arguably one of the most central defining doctrines of the 19th century, I think a new more enlightened understanding of gender and sexual identity based on scientific evidence, is a very small change by comparison. Line upon line learning, embracing truth no matter the source. 1
kiwi57 Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Really, care to provide evidence that they disagree with me? The evidence that they disagree with you is found in the fact that they jointly issued the Proclamation in the most authoritative form available to them. 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Why was the word doctrine redacted after GC? Call for references, please. 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Also are you mind reader? No. But thank you for asking. 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Absurd. Much of it was created whole cloth and has nothing to do with scripture or even earlier church precedent. Call for references, please. What portions were "created whole cloth?" 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: You have a right to your opinions, but I find these kind of comments offensive, and I'll kindly ask you to tone it down or stop commenting on this thread. By "tone it down" I presume you are referring to the "middle finger" comment? I shall edit that forthwith, and find some less "offensive" way to describe their utter contempt for the Church's position. 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: If the church can get rid of polygamy, arguably one of the most central defining doctrines of the 19th century, I think a new more enlightened understanding of gender and sexual identity based on scientific evidence, is a very small change by comparison. Line upon line learning, embracing truth no matter the source. Ah, someone else who thinks the leaders of the Church will only truly be "enlightened" when they agree with you. The ending of Plural Marriage was a far less radical change than completely redefining marriage would be. "Scientific Evidence" is completely irrelevant to the question of whether God approves of homosexual activity or SSM. Actually I can't think of anything more futile than someone peering through a microscope at a petrie dish in order to figure out what they should believe about questions of right and wrong. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: They are imperfect words that have baggage, but I don't think we should get too worked about the imprecise nature of these words. As one boss once reminded me when I got a little too focused perfect accuracy, "sometimes close enough is good enough." But that is just the problem: There is no "close enough" with words which merely indicate mood in the guise of actually meaning something. They are not merely words with "baggage," but rather they are actually meaningless nonsense words in the logical and philosophical sense. Sure a lot of people use them, including glib, poorly educated newscasters -- who are hired for their looks and voice qualities, not for their acumen. Using such terms constitutes a short-cut which completely misses the real meaning of current events and history. Many feel that such words give them real understanding, when precisely the opposite is the case. This will not, of course, mean anything to the hoi polloi, who will go on using that simplistic terminology forever -- perhaps only vaguely wondering why their political world is in such shambles.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Would you consider the canonization of the Proclamation on the Family to be a major change in policy or doctrine? I would, but I'm wondering what others think. Otherwise, I think he might continue to double down on the 2015 LGBT policy, which wouldn't be a change per say, but it would be an unfortunate continuance of a recent retrenchment in my mind. Hope I'm wrong, but who knows. My opinion: He won't be doubling down, and there will be no canonization. Either would be a bridge too far.
kiwi57 Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 On the doctrinal (and authoritative) status of the Proclamation, a quick search on LDS.org turned up the following: "I testify that the proclamation on the family is a statement of eternal truth, the will of the Lord for His children who seek eternal life. It has been the basis of Church teaching and practice for the last 22 years and will continue so for the future. Consider it as such, teach it, live by it, and you will be blessed as you press forward toward eternal life." (Dallin H. Oaks, "The Plan and the Proclamation," October 2017) "During this 20th anniversary year of the family proclamation, I would like to issue a challenge for all of us as women of the Church to be defenders of 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World.' Just as Marie Madeline Cardon courageously defended the missionaries and her newly found beliefs, we need to boldly defend the Lord’s revealed doctrines describing marriage, families, the divine roles of men and women, and the importance of homes as sacred places—even when the world is shouting in our ears that these principles are outdated, limiting, or no longer relevant." (Bonni L. Oscarson, "Defenders of the Family Proclamation", April 2015) M. Russell Ballard, "What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest," October 2005; whole talk. "That marvelous document brings together the scriptural direction that we have received that has guided the lives of God’s children from the time of Adam and Eve and will continue to guide us until the final winding-up scene." (David B. Haight, "Be a Strong Link," October 2000) "One year ago the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a proclamation to the world concerning the family. It summarizes eternal gospel principles that have been taught since the beginning of recorded history and even before the earth was created.... So fundamental is the family unit to the plan of salvation that God has declared a warning that those 'individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God [their maker]. … The disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.'" (Robert D. Hales, "The Eternal Family", October 1996) Question: If some faceless "they" wanted to expunge all references to the Proclamation as doctrine, then how on earth did these survive?
Atheist Mormon Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: What does the future hold for Mormonism with an anticipated President Nelson led church? I enjoyed reading Ben Park's article and thought I'd share. He speculates that perhaps Nelson will move to canonize the Proclamation on the Family. Or will a President Nelson be more moderate now once he's in control, like President Benson was. Only time will tell, what do you think? http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/04/commentary-what-comes-next-for-mormonism-outreach-or-retrenchment/ "But a Nelson presidency could still be much more moderate and conciliatory than expected." I highly doubt this. Considering his track record.............
kiwi57 Posted January 5, 2018 Posted January 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: My opinion: He won't be doubling down, and there will be no canonization. Either would be a bridge too far. I have no dog in this hunt, and I'm happy with whatever the brethren decide on this issue. But why would canonization be a bridge too far? It's already a joint statement of the First Presidency and the Twelve, and is widely (if not quite universally) regarded as authoritative, revelatory and doctrinal. What real difference would canonization make? Apart, perhaps, from forcing a few fence-sitters to decide where their loyalties lie?
hope_for_things Posted January 5, 2018 Author Posted January 5, 2018 44 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: Well, there are still those of us in the Church who believe inspiration comes from God. I rather suspect that the revisionist version of "the Alma 32 method" is a pretty serious misinterpretation. The "experiment" Alma asks for is that we "give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart." It is not that we measure it against our pre-existing notions and accept or reject it on that basis. Depends how you define God as well. For Alma 32 I was saying we measure the fruit and it’s affects, this of course requires humility.
hope_for_things Posted January 5, 2018 Author Posted January 5, 2018 44 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: But they seem to be quite unanimous about how mean the Church is being to them... Wherever two or more are gathered together in my name, there I will be also.
kiwi57 Posted January 5, 2018 Posted January 5, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Depends how you define God as well. Again, there are still some of us who think of God as an actual being who knows better than we do. 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: For Alma 32 I was saying we measure the fruit and it’s affects, this of course requires humility. So, some accept the teachings of the brethren as the revealed word of God. Others think the brethren are out of touch and just don't get it. Both groups think the other lacks humility. Isn't life stra-ha-hange? Edited January 5, 2018 by kiwi57
kiwi57 Posted January 5, 2018 Posted January 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Wherever two or more are gathered together in my name, there I will be also. I'm not sure that a little kaffeeklatsch (or even a big kaffeeklatsch) of people delighting to air their grievances against the Church are really gathered together in the Lord's name; but maybe that's just me.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2018 Posted January 5, 2018 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Hmm. What are your thoughts on these attempts to define these terms: Conservatism Liberalism Socialism Libertarianism You probably have a point, though. Several of these include in the definition "includes a broad spectrum of political philosphies..." Such elastic, loose, confederated definitions can be problematic.................. Just taking the first one, on "Conservatism," Spencer, I found it to be pretty much what one would expect, in which the definition can be adapted to nearly any emotional mood or political-economic-social stance in this or some other country. Much of it is no better than the sort of mealy-mouthed feelings and excuses one expects from the fan of some sports team. However, what does one do when the rubber really meets the road? For example, conservatives supposedly hate communism. Yet one would be hard put to find a more "conservative" figure than Leonid Brezhnev of the old Soviet Union. Brezhnev was head of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, yet he was the ultimate conservative, and even today Russians mostly hanker for the dependable and predictable days of his rule. That's why they like Putin. It might help to mention here that Milovan Djilas of the Yugoslav Communist Party pointed out that the Soviet system was not communist at all, but rather state capitalist. Most American conservatives have more in common with Brezhnev than with the Founding Fathers of America -- who were traitors, and who rebelled against king and country by force of arms. Is that conservatism? One would also imagine that conservatives would practice conservation in a number of areas: cultural and social traditions, the environment (ecosystems), etc. Yet it is precisely the so-called conservatives who are first in line to clear-cut the forests, contaminate the rivers and oceans, destroy entire mountains to get at dirty coal, etc., never asking whether that will harm the quality of life of their children and future generations. Entire communities have been destroyed by their rapacious and selfish behavior.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2018 Posted January 5, 2018 48 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: I have no dog in this hunt, and I'm happy with whatever the brethren decide on this issue. But why would canonization be a bridge too far? It's already a joint statement of the First Presidency and the Twelve, and is widely (if not quite universally) regarded as authoritative, revelatory and doctrinal. What real difference would canonization make? Apart, perhaps, from forcing a few fence-sitters to decide where their loyalties lie? We have a lot of First Presidency statements which have not been canonized. I see no compelling reason for canonization in this instance. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2018 Posted January 5, 2018 3 hours ago, pogi said: Depends on your definition. According to this he was. Quote Russell’s parents weren’t active members, but they still sent him to Sunday School. He often ditched his class to go play football. But his home teacher patiently taught him the gospel and the importance of church and the Sabbath. When he was 16, President Nelson and his siblings were baptized. His parents eventually became active in the Church again. That's not a conversion story. He was a Mormon kid whose parents were inactive. Would you term a Jewish kid whose parents didn't attend synagogue as convert if he began to attend later? Of course not, and no one within Judaism would consider him a convert. Nelson was part of the Mormon community, even if he wasn't baptized at 8. Mormonism is as much an ethnos as a religion. 1
Gray Posted January 5, 2018 Posted January 5, 2018 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I acknowledge that. The problem, I think, is that these terms ("conservative," "liberal," "progressive") are being used for their political meanings, but are being deployed in a theological context. Hence Mormons can be socipolitically "conservative," while also being doctrinally "liberal." Thanks, -Smac It trips people up for sure. I used to think of myself as a liberal Mormon. But in retrospect, I was simply a Mormon who was politically liberal. I was theologically conservative. Now I'm theologically liberal. 1
kiwi57 Posted January 5, 2018 Posted January 5, 2018 10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: That's not a conversion story. He was a Mormon kid whose parents were inactive. Would you term a Jewish kid whose parents didn't attend synagogue as convert if he began to attend later? Of course not, and no one within Judaism would consider him a convert. Nelson was part of the Mormon community, even if he wasn't baptized at 8. Mormonism is as much an ethnos as a religion. The Church doesn't count 16-year-olds as child of record baptisms. He may have been part of some vague, amorphous "ethnos," perhaps in the same way as certain "cultural Mormons" claim to be, but he wasn't a member of the Church until he was baptized. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2018 Posted January 5, 2018 3 hours ago, pogi said: ................................................................... Barring some freak accident or severe infection, I would expect to see President Nelson around for more than 2 years. I would expect him to recover well from most acute infections or illnesses, despite his age. Based on my rather superficial assessment, without access to his medical records, I wouldn't be surprised if he lived to 97 or 98. I see no signs of chronic or progressive illness. Who knows, centenarians are becoming more and more popular with each decade that passes. Pres Hinckley was fully active and healthy until age 97. He went to work everyday. As to centenarians, as of the 2010 U.S. Census, the U.S. had about 1.72 centenarians per 10,000 population (for a total then of 53,364). France had 2.7 per 10,000, the U.K. 1.95, Sweden 1.92, etc. https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/reports/c2010sr-03.pdf .
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2018 Posted January 5, 2018 1 minute ago, kiwi57 said: The Church doesn't count 16-year-olds as child of record baptisms. He may have been part of some vague, amorphous "ethnos," perhaps in the same way as certain "cultural Mormons" claim to be, but he wasn't a member of the Church until he was baptized. Yeh, and a Jew is not technically a member of his local synagogue until he pays his dues. Yuk, yuk. I made no reference to being a child of record of BIC. Legal fictions are fun, but have little relevance for real communities of faith. Mormonism is a way of life, not a Sunday go to meeting thing.
Gray Posted January 5, 2018 Posted January 5, 2018 7 hours ago, hope_for_things said: What does the future hold for Mormonism with an anticipated President Nelson led church? I enjoyed reading Ben Park's article and thought I'd share. He speculates that perhaps Nelson will move to canonize the Proclamation on the Family. Or will a President Nelson be more moderate now once he's in control, like President Benson was. Only time will tell, what do you think? http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/04/commentary-what-comes-next-for-mormonism-outreach-or-retrenchment/ We've had ongoing progress followed by immediate retrenchment for the last few years - perhaps sign of some internal disagreement. But, given that the next two likely prophets are also among the most conservative, retrenchment seems more likely now.
Recommended Posts