Mormon Future - Cultural Assimilation or Retrenchment?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

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.

Why do you consider the Proclamation the most authoritative form available to them?  Certainly as the newsroom link I posted earlier explained there is a hierarchy of sorts with respect to authoritative weight.  Proclamations aren't of the same weight as the standard works.  

Perhaps you could consider these other previous proclamations of similar import?  

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Proclamations_of_the_First_Presidency_and_the_Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Call for references, please.

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=50440474&itype=CMSID

I did make an error, my memory failed me on the specific word that was redacted.  It was the word "revelation" not the word "doctrine".  I think the earlier post from the newsroom calls its doctrinal status into question as well, but I"m not aware if other church leaders have called it doctrine specifically, perhaps they have.  I apologize for my earlier error.  

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Call for references, please. What portions were "created whole cloth?"

Personally I don't like the CFR game being played this way.  I could have CFR'd your choice earlier assertion that "The fifteen prophets, seers and revelators who wrote it disagree with you.", as its clear you have no documentation to prove that assertion.  My assertion is more of a matter of opinion, not something that should have to provide references for.  References are needed to substantiate specific claims, not personal opinions.  I will give a couple examples where I think sections were created and not sourced from scripture, just to technically satisfy your CFR, but let me go on notice that I'm not into playing this game.  

1. "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  I'm not aware of anything in scripture that explicitly defines gender in premortal terms. 

2. "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. "  These gender norms are not scripturally defined, they are 1950s post WWII ideal family kind of trends.  

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

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.

Thank you, and remember that I'm a person who disagrees with the church's position, I don't consider myself having "utter contempt" or doing the other thing you said.  Just lets keep it respectful.  Thanks

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

1. The ending of Plural Marriage was a far less radical change than completely redefining marriage would be.
2. "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.

Polygamy was huge, and arguably the central defining characteristic of Mormonism in the late 19th century.  I can't think of any bigger changes than changing that doctrine. 

I find it interesting and hopeful when recent statements by Elder Ballard can candidly admit that the leaders of the church are not experts on all things and that they should defer to the experts.  Deferring to science on matters of gender and sexual identity is completely appropriate.  Nothing else really needs to change, the church would just be following the science that has already informed many governments to change their definition of marriage to accord with the evidence.  In my opinion, it is just a matter of time before this eventually happens in Mormonism too.  

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Nothing else really needs to change, the church would just be following the science that has already informed many governments to change their definition of marriage to accord with the evidence.  In my opinion, it is just a matter of time before this eventually happens in Mormonism too.  

Well, that appears to help explain your chosen screen name...

[Thinking]

I would love it if Nelson would disavow Hinckley's one earring rule. My wife wore two earrings in one ear before Hinckley's proclamation, but immediately took one out after that GC talk. I miss that second earring. It added some sexiness.

[kiwi57]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Vaguely envisioned communities may be fun too; but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a specific organisation with specific membership entrance requirements. In no sense is it a "legal fiction."

If a child of record is baptized between the ages of 8 and 9, then that's what they've done; at the 9th birthday, their child of record status lapses. Being baptized at 16 is a convert baptism.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I think you're being unnecessarily critical.  If it were just talking heads on cable new networks using these terms you may have a point.  But, I read these terms being used by highly respected publications from academic journals like Oxford Press and others all the time.  We don't have to stop using conservative and liberal just because there is some confusion with respect to these terms.   

[hope_for_things]

1 hour 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.

The status quo may be the best I should hope for, but because of the increasingly difficult trends the church faces on these topics, I'm hoping for some progress still.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

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?

 

Thanks for the quotes, those are helpful.  The recent Oaks talk definitely raised the ante on this topic, and may have created a new precedent.  I wonder if that will continue to be moderated by the comments of others.  Remember one Apostolic statement does not constitute official church doctrine, I believe Elder Anderson has recently articulated this idea.  As for the proclamation, I agree with you that many leaders would consider many of its contents to be doctrinally based, but I'm not sure they would consider the whole proclamation to be doctrine.  It strikes me as very contextual to its time and place, where I think of doctrines as more universal principles that transcend time and place.  In that sense I think that many parts of the proclamation really fail the test of doctrine for me personally, and I believe they also fail the test as articulated in my earlier newsroom link.  

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Again, there are still some of us who think of God as an actual being who knows better than we do.

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?

Perhaps recognizing that God knows better than we do, includes recognizing that sometimes other people (perhaps myself included) may have a closer idea as to what God's desires are than we do on any particular subject.

As for the Alma 32 test, I think a good example would be when everyone finally saw what the fruit of the priesthood restriction was.  One side just happened to see the bad fruit before the other side, but eventually it was recognized by both sides.  

[kiwi57]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why do you consider the Proclamation the most authoritative form available to them?  Certainly as the newsroom link I posted earlier explained there is a hierarchy of sorts with respect to authoritative weight.  Proclamations aren't of the same weight as the standard works.

Thank you for admitting, however inadvertently, that only the Standard Works have higher authority than joint statements of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps you could consider these other previous proclamations of similar import?  

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Proclamations_of_the_First_Presidency_and_the_Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles

I don't know that they were of similar import, but I would argue that they are similarly authoritative. I certainly hold that the 1865 one remains in force upon all "who are or can be called saints."

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=50440474&itype=CMSID

I did make an error, my memory failed me on the specific word that was redacted.  It was the word "revelation" not the word "doctrine".  I think the earlier post from the newsroom calls its doctrinal status into question as well, but I"m not aware if other church leaders have called it doctrine specifically, perhaps they have.  I apologize for my earlier error.

Yes, I remember that particular storm in a teacup. So your authoritative source is a newspaper article drawing all manner of unwarranted conclusions from the fact that President Packer made a few minor tweaks to the published version of his talk.

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Personally I don't like the CFR game being played this way.  I could have CFR'd your choice earlier assertion that "The fifteen prophets, seers and revelators who wrote it disagree with you.", as its clear you have no documentation to prove that assertion.

Go ahead.

I reference the document, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," a joint statement of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

  My assertion is more of a matter of opinion, not something that should have to provide references for.  References are needed to substantiate specific claims, not personal opinions.  I will give a couple examples where I think sections were created and not sourced from scripture, just to technically satisfy your CFR, but let me go on notice that I'm not into playing this game.  

1. "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  I'm not aware of anything in scripture that explicitly defines gender in premortal terms. 

2. "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. "  These gender norms are not scripturally defined, they are 1950s post WWII ideal family kind of trends.

Thank you, I'll take that as satisfying the CFR. But you should be aware that the popular notion that traditional gender roles are a product of "1950s post WWII ideal family" is nonsense.

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thank you, and remember that I'm a person who disagrees with the church's position, I don't consider myself having "utter contempt" or doing the other thing you said.  Just lets keep it respectful.  Thanks

I wasn't referring to people who merely "disagrees with the church's position," I was referring to those who choose to live in direct opposition to the Church's teachings.

We're not particularly given to expressing our doctrines in aphorisms, but if we were, I humbly suggest that the following would represent a view that cannot be discarded without leaving a pretty incoherent mess behind:

Where the apostles are, there is the Church.

Apostasy is what the brethren say that it is, not what the apostates' sympathizers and "allies" wish it was.

Please remember that I'm a person who agrees with the Church's position; and while that makes me a member of a rare (if not endangered) species around here, there are still a few of us out there in the real Church.

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Polygamy was huge, and arguably the central defining characteristic of Mormonism in the late 19th century.

In the eyes of non-members, certainly. It wasn't for the Saints, though.

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I can't think of any bigger changes than changing that doctrine. 

Can't you? I can.

Abandoning the Book of Mormon, abandoning the Priesthood, abandoning the eternal family (mother + father + offspring) model of the afterlife would be a few.

And so would radically redefining marriage.

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I find it interesting and hopeful when recent statements by Elder Ballard can candidly admit that the leaders of the church are not experts on all things and that they should defer to the experts.  Deferring to science on matters of gender and sexual identity is completely appropriate.  Nothing else really needs to change, the church would just be following the science that has already informed many governments to change their definition of marriage to accord with the evidence.  In my opinion, it is just a matter of time before this eventually happens in Mormonism too. 

Thank you for your opinion.

The definition of marriage has not been changed "to accord with the evidence;" that is immoralist propaganda, and is false. It has been changed to accord with the changing fashions of public opinion.

Neither Elder Ballard nor anyone else has ever said that we "defer to the experts" on matters of faith and morals. The leaders of the Church are the experts on matters of faith and morals; in fact, they are the experts on matters of faith and morals, which are subjects upon which science has absolutely nothing to say, and is in fact completely incompetent to tell us anything.

So please tell me that you're not going to feel all "betrayed" when your "hopeful" feelings turn to disappointment. Wishful thinking keeps on seeing "indications" that the Church is leaning the way your apostate friends want it to lean, and when those "indications" turn to nothing, the wishers, instead of admitting their own errors, turn around and blame the Church.

 

[hope_for_things]

48 minutes ago, Gray said:

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.

It makes me nervous for sure.  Some are even speculating that the counselors might be changed.  I certainly hope not.  I'm more worried about Oaks than Nelson for sure, but I'm holding onto the Benson example of someone who moderated some when he took office.  

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Well, that appears to help explain your chosen screen name...

Yes, I like to hope for a lot of things in this crazy world.  Lots of opportunities to hope for change just about everywhere you look. 

[kiwi57]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps recognizing that God knows better than we do, includes recognizing that sometimes other people (perhaps myself included) may have a closer idea as to what God's desires are than we do on any particular subject.

Yes. Let's start by being humble enough to accept that the Apostles and Prophets know the mind and will of the Lord better than those who oppose them.

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As for the Alma 32 test, I think a good example would be when everyone finally saw what the fruit of the priesthood restriction was.  One side just happened to see the bad fruit before the other side, but eventually it was recognized by both sides.  

That's a remarkably revisionist view of the events of 1978.

[kiwi57]

52 minutes ago, Gray said:

We've had ongoing progress followed by immediate retrenchment for the last few years - perhaps sign of some internal disagreement.

No. You haven't.

You've had things like the Utah Compromise, and teachings reminding the Saints to be welcoming and accepting the Gospel, being promulgated at the same time as reiteration of the Church's clear standards of morality and membership.

There is no "disagreement" between those things. The only "disagreement" is between what the first set actually meant, and what the lookers-beyond-the-mark wished it might mean.

52 minutes ago, Gray said:

But, given that the next two likely prophets are also among the most conservative, retrenchment seems more likely now.

And if that happens - will ye also go away?

[kiwi57]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the quotes, those are helpful.  The recent Oaks talk definitely raised the ante on this topic, and may have created a new precedent.  I wonder if that will continue to be moderated by the comments of others.  Remember one Apostolic statement does not constitute official church doctrine, I believe Elder Anderson has recently articulated this idea.  As for the proclamation, I agree with you that many leaders would consider many of its contents to be doctrinally based, but I'm not sure they would consider the whole proclamation to be doctrine.  It strikes me as very contextual to its time and place, where I think of doctrines as more universal principles that transcend time and place.  In that sense I think that many parts of the proclamation really fail the test of doctrine for me personally, and I believe they also fail the test as articulated in my earlier newsroom link.  

 

Please note that Elder Hales in 1996 referred to the Proclamation as doctrinal, and directly quoted a portion of as being what "God has declared." I humbly submit that Elder Oaks' talk is not the radical departure some have wished to see it as.

And I think you may be applying a little bit of wishful thinking to your interpretation of that Newsroom link, too.

[kiwi57]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It makes me nervous for sure.  Some are even speculating that the counselors might be changed.  I certainly hope not.  I'm more worried about Oaks than Nelson for sure, but I'm holding onto the Benson example of someone who moderated some when he took office.  

The choice of counselors is entirely up to the President. I saw President Eyring a few months ago, and he was looking a bit frail. If President Nelson wanted to make a change, this might be the time to do it.

Incidentally, Latter-day Saints usually refer to the brethren with honorifics, such as Elder Oaks and President Nelson. If you want to "be respectful," you might like to keep that in mind.

Edited January 5, 2018 by kiwi57

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It makes me nervous for sure.  Some are even speculating that the counselors might be changed.  I certainly hope not.  I'm more worried about Oaks than Nelson for sure, but I'm holding onto the Benson example of someone who moderated some when he took office.  

Thank you for this thread. It in general and your specific comment above have instilled in me a profound gratitude for my complete lack of worry on this topic. It is good to feel joy, but you've reminded me that it's better to feel joy knowing that it could be otherwise. 

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, I remember that particular storm in a teacup. So your authoritative source is a newspaper article drawing all manner of unwarranted conclusions from the fact that President Packer made a few minor tweaks to the published version of his talk.

That talk caused a huge stir, and received international media attention if I remember correctly.  Also, since talks are rarely redacted after given, I find this evidence that the church was uncomfortable with the characterization of revelation for the Proclamation at the time.  

6 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Go ahead.

I reference the document, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," a joint statement of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

The problem being that this wouldn't satisfy my CFR of your statement that the 15 church leaders disagree with me.  You don't have any evidence to support that all 15 leaders disagree with me.  At best your quote from the Elder Oaks talk is evidence that one of them disagrees with me, and you could also perhaps claim that Packer disagrees with me (even though he later redacted his statement).  This is not evidence to substantiate all 15 disagreeing with me.  

11 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Apostasy is what the brethren say that it is, not what the apostates' sympathizers and "allies" wish it was.

Well, using a similar argument that church leaders use for "traditional marriage" it could be said that the LDS church cannot define apostasy in this moment in time because that term has a longer and broader traditional definition that supersedes the narrow Mormon one.  Oxford dictionary defines this term as:

Quote

The abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief or principle.

Using that definition I don't see how you can fit believing LGBT indivduals into that umbrella.  

15 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

In the eyes of non-members, certainly. It wasn't for the Saints, though.

This isn't true and is ignorant of LDS church history.  It was the central idea for church leaders at that time period.  I would recommend reading more church history on the polygamy subject.  I can recommend some books if you're interested.  

17 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

The definition of marriage has not been changed "to accord with the evidence;" that is immoralist propaganda, and is false. It has been changed to accord with the changing fashions of public opinion.

Assuming that you live in the USA, you live in a country that defines marriage differently than your traditional opposite sex construct.  You may not agree with it, but your taxes support same sex marriages and the equality that has been established.  I'm guessing you also work for a company that provides health care coverage to same sex partners and their children, and other things.  

20 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Neither Elder Ballard nor anyone else has ever said that we "defer to the experts" on matters of faith and morals. The leaders of the Church are the experts on matters of faith and morals; in fact, they are the experts on matters of faith and morals, which are subjects upon which science has absolutely nothing to say, and is in fact completely incompetent to tell us anything.

Here is what he said:

Quote

I worry that members expect too much from their leaders and teachers, expecting them to be experts [in areas and topics] well beyond their expertise. If you have a question that requires an expert, please take the time to find an expert to help you.

He actually never said he was an expect on moral and faith issues.  He never clarified which subjects.  But I think when it comes to gender and sexual identity its pretty clear that he's not an expert.  

[kiwi57]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

That talk caused a huge stir, and received international media attention if I remember correctly.  Also, since talks are rarely redacted after given, I find this evidence that the church was uncomfortable with the characterization of revelation for the Proclamation at the time.

Actually, it's quite common for the published version of a talk to differ slightly from the delivered version. I've noticed it myself many times. This one just got a lot of attention because there was a feeding frenzy of nit-pickers about the SSA thing.

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem being that this wouldn't satisfy my CFR of your statement that the 15 church leaders disagree with me.  You don't have any evidence to support that all 15 leaders disagree with me.  At best your quote from the Elder Oaks talk is evidence that one of them disagrees with me, and you could also perhaps claim that Packer disagrees with me (even though he later redacted his statement).  This is not evidence to substantiate all 15 disagreeing with me. 

The document demonstrates that all 15 of them disagree with you, because they put their names to it as authoritatively declaring their position - and ipso facto, that of the Church.

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, using a similar argument that church leaders use for "traditional marriage" it could be said that the LDS church cannot define apostasy in this moment in time because that term has a longer and broader traditional definition that supersedes the narrow Mormon one.  Oxford dictionary defines this term as:

Using that definition I don't see how you can fit believing LGBT indivduals into that umbrella.  

A "believing LGBT individual" who chooses to enter into a doctrinally impossible marriage has repudiated, abandoned, or renounced at least two religious principles:

1. That marriage is between a man and a woman, and not otherwise;
2. That the President of the Church holds the Priesthood keys over all ordinances, including that of marriage.

So whatever it is that they may or may not believe, they have chosen to put SSM ahead of their purported religious beliefs. That is apostasy.

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This isn't true and is ignorant of LDS church history.

Thank you for demonstrating your idea of what it means to "be respectful."

It is true, sorry. The majority of Latter-day Saints did not live polygamy. There were a number of other important distinctives that really defined what the Church - and for that matter, what a Latter-day Saint - is and does, far more than polygamy.

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It was the central idea for church leaders at that time period.  I would recommend reading more church history on the polygamy subject.  I can recommend some books if you're interested.

And I can teach you how to spell three-letter words, if you're interested.

If the brethren talked a lot about it at the time, that merely reflects its significance as a point of conflict with wider society.

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Assuming that you live in the USA, you live in a country that defines marriage differently than your traditional opposite sex construct.  You may not agree with it, but your taxes support same sex marriages and the equality that has been established.  I'm guessing you also work for a company that provides health care coverage to same sex partners and their children, and other things.

I live in New Zealand, a country that shares the fictitious legal concept of same sex marriage. I have no control over the purposes which my taxes support.

I deny that SSM establishes "equality." I say that it deconstructs a core social institution to benefit a privileged few. Note that there has never been anything like a "sexual orientation test" for anyone wishing to enter into an authentic (i.e. conjugal) marriage, so "equality" was already there.

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Here is what he said:

He actually never said he was an expect on moral and faith issues.  He never clarified which subjects.  But I think when it comes to gender and sexual identity its pretty clear that he's not an expert.  

Thank you for your opinion. But as I said, when it comes to matters of faith and morals, he is.

He was not abdicating to secular "experts" the responsibility to teach revealed truth to the Church and the world. To do so would be to abandon a core religious principle, and would thus be apostasy.

The notion that Elder Ballard, or any other apostle, wants the Church to let scientists tell us what is right and wrong in terms of faith and morals is simply preposterous.

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes. Let's start by being humble enough to accept that the Apostles and Prophets know the mind and will of the Lord better than those who oppose them.

I don’t agree that they have special access to the mind of God because of their church positions. I do believe they have official authority for the institution, but that doesn’t make them any better aligning with the divine will or more likely to be inspired than anyone else.  

[CV75]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

 

Well, he does say, "Like most denominations, the modern Mormon church strikes a complicated balance between cultural assimilation and retrenchment." I think I'm saying the same thing, that I don't see the Church's progress under a post-Monson presidency as an either/or proposition. Plus, I don't see the progress of the Church dependent on the personality of the individual serving as President. Parks uses Hinckley as an example outreach and conclusion, but ignores his role in the Proclamation*, which can be construed as retrenchment. He represents Monson as achieving the balance, at least dealing well with the "competing trajectories," but attributes that to opportunities taken by other personalities due to his ill health. He uses Nelson as emblematic of retrenchment, but ignored his great outreach efforts in China, Russia and communist/socialist Europe.

The media will certainly continue to be a powerful force (both the secular and popular media and the Church PR), thus making the Church's efforts -- however they are taken to be -- to become even better known. Mauss' article supports the idea that the Church has achieved success by striking a balance. Hence my comment is consistent with both Parks' and Mauss' articles in that "I see neither assimilation nor retrenchment [in a Nelson or in successive presidencies], but continued progress. Of course, progress can be framed as either, but I see the Church becoming better known."

*Edit: and earrings!

Edited January 5, 2018 by CV75

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Please note that Elder Hales in 1996 referred to the Proclamation as doctrinal, and directly quoted a portion of as being what "God has declared." I humbly submit that Elder Oaks' talk is not the radical departure some have wished to see it as.

And I think you may be applying a little bit of wishful thinking to your interpretation of that Newsroom link, too.

3 out of 15, not bad.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

The choice of counselors is entirely up to the President. I saw President Eyring a few months ago, and he was looking a bit frail. If President Nelson wanted to make a change, this might be the time to do it.

Incidentally, Latter-day Saints usually refer to the brethren with honorifics, such as Elder Oaks and President Nelson. If you want to "be respectful," you might like to keep that in mind.

Hugh B Brown is the only counselor in history to not be retained in a presidency, so I think it’s likely the precedent will continue.

I usually use the proper titles, was just in a hurry for that reply. 

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

If a child of record is baptized between the ages of 8 and 9, then that's what they've done; at the 9th birthday, their child of record status lapses. Being baptized at 16 is a convert baptism.

It requires taking the missionary lessons for one thing.

It was not a convert baptism in the sense of an individual finding the Gospel in adulthood after he has lived a significant portion of his life without that experience, but being in an inactive family is not the typical BIC upbringing either.

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Actually, it's quite common for the published version of a talk to differ slightly from the delivered version. I've noticed it myself many times. This one just got a lot of attention because there was a feeding frenzy of nit-pickers about the SSA thing.

The talk caused an immediate stir in the press and Was redacted in response to the controversy.  A cosmetic change to an average talk this was not.  

36 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

The document demonstrates that all 15 of them disagree with you, because they put their names to it as authoritatively declaring their position - and ipso facto, that of the Church.

Not explicitly calling it doctrine or revelation, which is what you can’t prove.

38 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

A "believing LGBT individual" who chooses to enter into a doctrinally impossible marriage has repudiated, abandoned, or renounced at least two religious principles:

1. That marriage is between a man and a woman, and not otherwise;
2. That the President of the Church holds the Priesthood keys over all ordinances, including that of marriage.

So whatever it is that they may or may not believe, they have chosen to put SSM ahead of their purported religious beliefs. That is apostasy.

I don’t see how your example shows a violation of the Oxford definition.  

Feeling like I’m starting to repeat myself at this point...

 

 

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well, he does say, "Like most denominations, the modern Mormon church strikes a complicated balance between cultural assimilation and retrenchment." I think I'm saying the same thing, that I don't see the Church's progress under a post-Monson presidency as an either/or proposition. Plus, I don't see the progress of the Church dependent on the personality of the individual serving as President. Parks uses Hinckley as an example outreach and conclusion, but ignores his role in the Proclamation, which can be construed as retrenchment. He represents Monson as achieving the balance, at least dealing well with the "competing trajectories," but attributes that to opportunities taken by other personalities due to his ill health. He uses Nelson as emblematic of retrenchment, but ignored his great outreach efforts in China, Russia and communist/socialist Europe.

The media will certainly continue to be a powerful force (both the secular and popular media and the Church PR), thus making the Church's efforts -- however they are taken to be -- to become even better known. Mauss' article supports the idea that the Church has achieved success by striking a balance. Hence my comment is consistent with both Parks' and Mauss' articles in that "I see neither assimilation nor retrenchment [in a Nelson or in successive presidencies], but continued progress. Of course, progress can be framed as either, but I see the Church becoming better known."

It’s all very complex and there certainly are strains of retrenchment and assimilation happening at the same time.  That doesn’t mean they all cancel each other out or that their impacts are all equivalent.  

Also, personality throughout history has had a huge impact on how the church has been governed.  Consider the stark differences in leadership style between a Joseph Smith and a Brigham Young.