Jane_Doe Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Five Solas said: Recall how we got to here and you'll see I haven't changed the subject at all, kiwi. Throughout this thread a number of LDS posters have attacked the integrity of the New York Times and one or two have denounced "the news media" generally. Back when I was still LDS, a dozen+ years ago, articles and editorials were questioned and debated - but the Times was (and is) a respected American institution. No one ever said the sort of things now being said here. It's an example of a big change in LDS culture and thinking, just in the past decade. And it coincides with other big changes, withdrawals really, from American society. The ROTC program leaving BYU. The LDS Church leaving the BSA. Big changes under the leadership of Thomas S. Monson. Changes I never would have believed if someone predicted them 15 years ago. I think it is completely fair to characterize Monson's time as a period of retrenchment and retreat or withdrawal from significant and long-established American institutions. I honestly don't see how you could characterize it any other way. But Jane_Doe doesn't like this, she imagines the LDS Church as a sort of religious/cultural rock left standing after the tide went out. She wants everyone to believe it's American society drifting away from the LDS Church and not the other way round. She has an example to make her point, SSM. And she had a second example (which I missed previously) - and that is her general sense of rising promiscuity. It is remarkable (to me at least) that she only sees society through the lens of human sexuality. And if you believe that really is the best way to consider the state of society--try to imagine your condition in 1840's England, you poor and without an education. It's not just about sex any more, is it? And no less remarkable is that she doesn't seem to appreciate society has always been evolving and that as the preacher tells us, "There is no new thing under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9). As I type I realize this merits its own thread. Perhaps if I'm feeling surly, I'll call it "biting the hand that feeds it." 1910 BoyScouts and LDS: "marriage is between a man and a woman". 2010 BoyScouts and LDS: "marriage is between a man and a woman". 2016: LDS: "marriage is between a man and a woman". BoyScouts: "nah, we changed our mind. Get together with whoever." 2017: LDS keeps doing it's same thing. BoyScouts goes it's new direction. Erik says: "Mormons are retreating!". Everyone else: "Retreating = standing still"? Erik, please quit falsely accusing Mormons on a Mormon board. Instead, focus on strengthening your relationship with Christ. Edited January 24, 2018 by Jane_Doe 4
ALarson Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Five Solas said: The ROTC program leaving BYU. The LDS Church leaving the BSA. Big changes under the leadership of Thomas S. Monson. Changes I never would have believed if someone predicted them 15 years ago. Yes, and add to that, the policy that was put in place regarding not baptizing children living with parents in a SSM (that was something new) along with prop 8, and this issue or topic (gays, SSM, etc.) drew attention to the church while Pres. Monson was serving (even though he was actually silent on the matter as far as publicly speaking about it). These were all pretty big changes and they received coverage from the press too. Members have become divided on this issue and much of that occurred while Pres. Monson was president. But I do agree that the church leaders have not altered their teaching regarding marriage being between a man and a woman. They've stood their ground on that and actually dug their heels in (with the new policy). Edited January 24, 2018 by ALarson 1
kiwi57 Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 2 hours ago, ALarson said: Yes, and add to that, the policy that was put in place regarding not baptizing children living with parents in a SSM (that was something new) along with prop 8, and this issue or topic (gays, SSM, etc.) drew attention to the church while Pres. Monson was serving (even though he was actually silent on the matter as far as publicly speaking about it). These were all pretty big changes and they received coverage from the press too. Members have become divided on this issue and much of that occurred while Pres. Monson was president. But I do agree that the church leaders have not altered their teaching regarding marriage being between a man and a woman. They've stood their ground on that and actually dug their heels in (with the new policy). The policy is new because the notion of same sex "marriage" is new. Previously, if a member of the Church entered into a same sex relationship, it was regarded as a Law of Chastity violation like any other. Now, however, it is an act of apostasy, similar to entering into a polygamous relationship. Thus, the same approach is taken to children living in both kinds of households. 3
ALarson Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 6 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: The policy is new because the notion of same sex "marriage" is new. Where has a leader stated that this is the reason for the policy? (Honest question as I'd like to read where this is stated.) CFR 1
kiwi57 Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 1 minute ago, ALarson said: Where has a leader stated that this is the reason for the policy? (Honest question as I'd like to read where this is stated.) CFR What? I'm not quoting anybody, I thought it was obvious. 1
ALarson Posted January 24, 2018 Posted January 24, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: What? I'm not quoting anybody, I thought it was obvious. You stated it as if it was a fact. So, you were just giving your opinion? (Just clarifying....) Because same-sex marriage is not a "new" concept (if that was why this new policy was implemented, it would have happened years ago, IMO): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage Edited January 24, 2018 by ALarson 3
kiwi57 Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 9 hours ago, Five Solas said: Recall how we got to here and you'll see I haven't changed the subject at all, kiwi. Throughout this thread a number of LDS posters have attacked the integrity of the New York Times and one or two have denounced "the news media" generally. Back when I was still LDS, a dozen+ years ago, articles and editorials were questioned and debated - but the Times was (and is) a respected American institution. No one ever said the sort of things now being said here. It's an example of a big change in LDS culture and thinking, just in the past decade. In your imagination. But it's irrelevant. You're trying to run a red herring past me. It's not going to work. 9 hours ago, Five Solas said: And it coincides with other big changes, withdrawals really, from American society. The ROTC program leaving BYU. The LDS Church leaving the BSA. Big changes under the leadership of Thomas S. Monson. Changes I never would have believed if someone predicted them 15 years ago. What, 15 years ago you thought the Church would blindly follow the US to hell if that's where the US decided to go? Is that what you really thought? 9 hours ago, Five Solas said: I think it is completely fair to characterize Monson's time as a period of retrenchment and retreat or withdrawal from significant and long-established American institutions. I honestly don't see how you could characterize it any other way. But Jane_Doe doesn't like this, she imagines the LDS Church as a sort of religious/cultural rock left standing after the tide went out. She wants everyone to believe it's American society drifting away from the LDS Church and not the other way round. She has an example to make her point, SSM. And she had a second example (which I missed previously) - and that is her general sense of rising promiscuity. Yes, and? The fact is that Jane put those examples forward. Instead of addressing them, you went into a weird tangent about millennnials having less sex, and how we should all be celebrating that. It talks right past her point. 9 hours ago, Five Solas said: It is remarkable (to me at least) that she only sees society through the lens of human sexuality. And if you believe that really is the best way to consider the state of society--try to imagine your condition in 1840's England, you poor and without an education. It's not just about sex any more, is it? And no less remarkable is that she doesn't seem to appreciate society has always been evolving and that as the preacher tells us, "There is no new thing under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9). As I type I realize this merits its own thread. Perhaps if I'm feeling surly, I'll call it "biting the hand that feeds it." Like your attitude towards a group of Mormons who tolerate your hostility? 3
kiwi57 Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 2 hours ago, ALarson said: You stated it as if it was a fact. So, you were just giving your opinion? (Just clarifying....) Because same-sex marriage is not a "new" concept (if that was why this new policy was implemented, it would have happened years ago, IMO): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage It's not a new concept, but it's new to the legal landscape. Are you really not aware of that? 2
JulieM Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, ALarson said: You stated it as if it was a fact. So, you were just giving your opinion? (Just clarifying....) Because same-sex marriage is not a "new" concept (if that was why this new policy was implemented, it would have happened years ago, IMO): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage Good point. 2001 is not really recent or new. Maybe to some, but if that was the reason for the 2015 SSM new policy, they’re a bit late! Edited January 25, 2018 by JulieM
kiwi57 Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 29 minutes ago, JulieM said: Good point. 2001 is not really recent or new. Maybe to some, but if that was the reason for the 2015 SSM new policy, they’re a bit late! Oh, so the Obergefell decision was handed down in 2001, was it? Who knew? But in any event, in comparison to the very long history of authentic marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution, 2001 is practically yesterday. 2
kiwi57 Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 4 hours ago, ALarson said: You stated it as if it was a fact. So, you were just giving your opinion? (Just clarifying....) Because same-sex marriage is not a "new" concept (if that was why this new policy was implemented, it would have happened years ago, IMO): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage Incidentally, like a great many Wikipedia articles, that "timeline" includes a number of highly disputable assertions. For example, the 11th-century Spanish "same sex marriage" turns out, upon examination, to be nothing more than a legal contract for joint ownership of a house and land. To such lengths will the immoralists go to try to shore up their historical revisionism. 3
JulieM Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 26 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: Oh, so the Obergefell decision was handed down in 2001, was it? Who knew? There are members of the church outside of the United States. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 12 hours ago, Five Solas said: The ROTC program leaving BYU. Since no one has yet corrected Five Sodas’s fact error, I will do so. The ROTC has not left BYU. It’s true that the current commander got surly over an honor code provision and said he was moving the unit headquarters to UVU. But that never happened. He hasn’t gotten the Department of Defense to bless it. The Air Force ROTC headquarters remains on the BYU campus where it will probably stay throughout the duration of this guy’s term there. 3
Kenngo1969 Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Since no one has yet corrected Five Sodas’s fact error, I will do so. The ROTC has not left BYU. It’s true that the current commander got surly over an honor code provision and said he was moving the unit headquarters to UVU. But that never happened. He hasn’t gotten the Department of Defense to bless it. The Air Force ROTC headquarters remains on the BYU campus where it will probably stay throughout the duration of this guy’s term there. Good catch. I was going to point that out, as well. This is three months old, but: http://universe.byu.edu/2017/10/04/byu-air-force-rotc-remain-on-campus-rather-than-move-to-uvu/ 1
ALarson Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 12 hours ago, kiwi57 said: Incidentally, like a great many Wikipedia articles, that "timeline" includes a number of highly disputable assertions. For example, the 11th-century Spanish "same sex marriage" turns out, upon examination, to be nothing more than a legal contract for joint ownership of a house and land. To such lengths will the immoralists go to try to shore up their historical revisionism. Thanks for the additional info. I agree about Wikipedia, but just posted that as an example of how the concept of same-sex marriages or unions is nothing new. Even with the errors, much of the information on there is accurate regarding this topic and my point still stands. I sincerely was interested to read anything you had from church leaders that you'd based your opinion on. If it's just that (your opinion rather than a fact), I can accept that too.
ALarson Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Since no one has yet corrected Five Sodas’s fact error, I will do so. The ROTC has not left BYU. It’s true that the current commander got surly over an honor code provision and said he was moving the unit headquarters to UVU. But that never happened. He hasn’t gotten the Department of Defense to bless it. The Air Force ROTC headquarters remains on the BYU campus where it will probably stay throughout the duration of this guy’s term there. Yeah, I thought that too (but neglected to correct it). He should have stated something like "ROTC threatened to leave BYU" or "Considered leaving", etc. Either way, it was not a good PR moment for the church, IMO (except maybe for some church members).
kiwi57 Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 14 hours ago, JulieM said: There are members of the church outside of the United States. No, really? Who knew?
JulieM Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: No, really? Who knew? https://mobile.nytimes.com/2001/04/02/world/first-gay-couples-marry-in-the-netherlands.html?referer= (Just responding to your inference that there was’t SSM prior to the Obergefell decision.) Edited January 25, 2018 by JulieM
Scott Lloyd Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, ALarson said: Yeah, I thought that too (but neglected to correct it). He should have stated something like "ROTC threatened to leave BYU" or "Considered leaving", etc. Either way, it was not a good PR moment for the church, IMO (except maybe for some church members). It is turning out to be a tempest in a teapot. And from what I can tell, the Church is weathering it just fine. Edited January 25, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Gray Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It is turning out to be a tempest in a teapot. And from what I can tell, the Church is weathering it just fine. 1
kiwi57 Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 4 hours ago, JulieM said: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2001/04/02/world/first-gay-couples-marry-in-the-netherlands.html?referer= (Just responding to your inference that there was’t SSM prior to the Obergefell decision.) What "inference" was that? 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 Erik: You probably won't see this (and you might not answer it if you do; that's certainly your prerogative). I do wonder, though, about your apparent penchant for engaging in schadenfreude (wow, three languages in one sentence! ) regarding the apparent travails of your former faith: Do you really think that [fill-in-the-blank-with-preferred-word-here: secularists/skeptics/empiricists/et cetera/ad infinitum/ad nauseam] who harbor the antipathy they do about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its doctrines, leaders, practices, and so forth, will give you and your faith a "pass" simply because of your shared antipathy toward Mormonism? Really? Really, really? 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 I don't really get the whole notion that, whenever anyone in the world does something that, somehow, is at odds with the teachings, doctrines, practices, or stances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the knee-jerk reaction of many (even those who consider themselves to be within the fold) is, "Wow! This is a horrible PR moment for the Church!" As though PR is the only, or at least the most important (by far), reason for doing (or for not doing) anything, especially for a church, and especially for a Church which claims to have been instituted by Christ Himself. ... Yeah, if the Church of Jesus Christ were to change its teaching, doctrine, practice, or stance with regard to [x], or with regard to a-sub-1 through z-sub-infinity, it would gain greater acceptance of the world. But just as the "if-it-feels-good-do-it" movement of the '60's was a countercultural backlash against the alleged strictures (moral and otherwise) of the decades that preceded it, one of the raisons d'etre of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day is to be a countercultural bulwark against the "Me, First, Last, and Always" individualism which was ushered in by the previous countercultural revolution. Of course faiths which conceive of God, not as a sometimes-stern but nonetheless ever-loving Divine Parent whose every thought and whose every act springs from nothing but concern for our divine and eternal welfare (see Moses 1:39 in the Pearl of Great Price), but, rather, as Dan Peterson once put it (paraphrasing), as everyone's ever-loving, ever-supportive, never-judgmental Pal, are going to be more popular than those of which the reverse can be said. Isn't that the whole point? As Christ told His disciples (and, oh, by the way, aren't we supposed to be Christ's disciples?), "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you" (John 15:19 KJV). So, to anyone who says, "Oh! This is a PR disaster for the Church!" as the ways of the Church of Jesus Christ and the ways of the world, respectively, continue to diverge, my response to that is, "Well, if you think what's already happened (and the Church's response to it) has been a 'PR disaster,' you ain't seen nothin' yet."
Atheist Mormon Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: So, to anyone who says, "Oh! This is a PR disaster for the Church!" as the ways of the Church of Jesus Christ and the ways of the world, respectively, continue to diverge, my response to that is, "Well, if you think what's already happened (and the Church's response to it) has been a 'PR disaster,' you ain't seen nothin' yet." I so agree... This is why Missionary proselytizing will be obsolete soon (if not already), because they are ruining things when the facts become very irrelevant with their object/goal.
Five Solas Posted January 28, 2018 Posted January 28, 2018 On 1/24/2018 at 9:04 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Since no one has yet corrected Five Sodas’s fact error, I will do so. The ROTC has not left BYU. It’s true that the current commander got surly over an honor code provision and said he was moving the unit headquarters to UVU. But that never happened. He hasn’t gotten the Department of Defense to bless it. The Air Force ROTC headquarters remains on the BYU campus where it will probably stay throughout the duration of this guy’s term there. I always welcome & gladly take correction. Per Kenngo's link, Air Force ROTC is in limbo at BYU with a highly experienced & decorated senior officer telling the press, "They won't let me teach - since I won't sign it." Clearly the situation is untenable and equally clear the DoD has other priorities at the moment. But better taxpayer funds go wasted and students be ill-served than a man be permitted to defile the institution by drinking coffee in his personal quarters. Ah, religion--what a mess you can make. I'm going to suggest you, Scott, that none of this serves to undermine the previous points or in any way alters the substance of what's been said. But if I were to have a re-do, I'd state that during Monson's time, AF ROTC has been placed in limbo at BYU. My words were premature. I regret the error. --Erik ________________________________ Hey now, hey now now Sing this corrosion to me Hey now, hey now now --Sisters of Mercy, 1987
Recommended Posts