The Quiet before the Storm

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/17/2021 at 4:34 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

I wonder if the rest of Christianity would agree with you...I'm guessing not.

Assuming “the rest of Christianity” is acquainted with the Bible, they would have to be aware that plurality of wives existed in ancient cultures, including at times among God’s covenant people.
 

This would be the case, even if we were to assume that “the rest of Christianity” were ignorant of world history, anthropology, contemporary human geography, etc. Surely you are not suggesting that is the case. 
 

Contrast that with the concept of marriage between people of the same sex. It is a late-20th Century innovation — hence, a redefinition of marriage. 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

................... seems, at least to me, to have been a pattern for decades since the introduction of the internet and the churches inability to fully control it's own story.

The LDS Church should not be able to control its own story.  That would be an illusory goal, and not a meaningful one.  All the LDS Church can and should do, as the self-defined Kingdom of God Earth, is to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and prepare the way for the Second Coming of Christ at the End Time.  Scholars and religious historians will control the story of whatever church they find out there.

Quote

A quiet and then a huge story.

So first, I'm pointing this out and second wondering what it is that will be the next big story to hit the fan or blow up the boards. Or it could be that I am just seeing random patterns in the clouds.

Well, if something big turns up, then we can call you the "Fair Dinkum Prophet."

Edited February 18, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

There was a Canadian member of the Church with a PH.D. in Law who got the Order of Canada awhile back, that is amazing!!!!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Borrows

 

Something i've noticed is that on fridays they announce stuff, it's like they have a meeting in the morning, agree on whatever and then make the release of the news in the afternoon

It's just because they don't want to rile up the stock market, so they wait til the market closes for 2 days.

Edited February 18, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

This seems, at least to me, to have been a pattern for decades since the introduction of the internet and the churches inability to fully control it's own story.

And when exactly was the Church able to fully control its own story? Abner Cole began satirising the as-yet unpublished Book of Mormon in the Palmyra Reflector before the Church was even organised, and I personally can't identify this Golden Age you seem to be positing at any point between then and now.

Quote

A quiet and then a huge story.

Mate, you've just described literally every natural phenomenon that includes any variability. Have you ever noticed that huge storms inevitably follow (and precede!) periods of quieter weather? Large movements in markets always occur after and before periods of smaller movements or even stability. Serious illnesses certainly follow stages of better health. And so on. If 'huge' things happen consistently, they're not perceived as huge. If they never happen, they're not perceived at all. The only reality, then, is a pattern of big things being interspaced amongst quieter things. 

[Stargazer]

19 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

This is off-topic, Fair Dinkum, so forgive me.  But when I think of your screen name, this is what I think of: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/12vinson?lang=eng

Just thought I'd share.  Sorry for the diversion!  Carry on!

Wow, that's a powerful sermon! Fair Dinkum indeed!

[california boy]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Assuming “the rest of Christianity” is acquainted with the Bible, they would have to be aware that plurality of wives existed in ancient cultures, including at times among God’s covenant people.
 

This is would be the case, even if we were to assume that “the rest of Christianity” were ignorant of world history, anthropology, contemporary human geography, etc. Surely you are not suggesting that is the case. 
 

Contrast that with the concept of marriage between people of the same sex. It is a late-20th Century innovation — hence, a redefinition of marriage. 

We have heard this argument for years.   If you were to take your argument out in the real world away from your Mormon bubble, how many people would agree that the definition of marriage in the United States includes polygamist marriages?

Even if you are right and Americans in the 1830's accepted that the definition of marriage included as many wives as a man wanted.  (Something that history just doesn't even come close to being able to support). So what.  Definitions change all the time.  Every year, a new dictionary is published with new definitions of words that have been in existence as long as the word marriage has.  We don't use the same definitions as ancient times.  Just who controls all of those new definitions of words?  Do you think the Church is entitled to control how words are defined?  Time to move on Scott.  Outside your Mormon bubble, the definition of marriage includes gay couples. Polygamist relationships in the United States are not considered marriages.  

 

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

It is about time for Church leaders to figure out another way to throw the LGBT community under the bus.  Past actions include:

Okay.  My hopes for the next big reveal are more along the line of receiving more public affirmations that it is okay to drink beer, in moderation... a very mild drink, I think,,, and that home sacrament will remain a valid option for the remainder of my mortal life.

I've already heard enough about LGBTQ stuff and don't need or even want to hear any more about it.

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

We have heard this argument for years.   If you were to take your argument out in the real world away from your Mormon bubble, how many people would agree that the definition of marriage in the United States includes polygamist marriages?

Including marriage after one of the married partners dies?  I think pretty much everyone is okay with that, which is how most LDS who are males get more than only 1 wife now.

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Okay.  My hopes for the next big reveal are more along the line of receiving more public affirmations that it is okay to drink beer, in moderation... a very mild drink, I think,,, and that home sacrament will remain a valid option for the remainder of my mortal life.

I've already heard enough about LGBTQ stuff and don't need or even want to hear any more about it.

Well the Church doesn't seem to have the same fascination with drinking beer as it does with what gay couples do.  So you are probably going to be disappointed.

 I am sure there are a lot of people out there in the LGBT community who are just as tired of hearing from Mormons knocking on their door telling them what they should think about religion.

Edited February 18, 2021 by california boy

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Well the Church doesn't seem to have the same fascination with drinking beer as it does with what gay couples do.  So you are probably going to be disappointed.

There is no good reason for the fascination with drinking beer to be the same as the fascination with LGBTQ stuff, if anyone has any fascination with LGBTQ stuff.  Drinking beer is totally different and totally unrelated to anything specifically LGBTQ.

And I don't think there is anything left to reveal about LGBTQ stuff.

1 minute ago, california boy said:

 I am sure there are a lot of people out there who are just as tired of hearing what Mormons think of the LGBT community.

And yet for some reason you seem to keep bringing it up.  I would rather hear more about drinking beer and observing the sacrament at home.

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Luther only said he did not have a scriptural refutation of it. He didn’t endorse it and emphatically thought it was a bad idea.

I had read something somewhere to the effect that Luther had his approval conveyed to a German noble that he should consider marrying a second wife rather than divorcing his current wife (with whom he did not get on with at all) or visiting prostitutes. I didn't recall the details, but finally found some:

'Landgrave Philip of Hesse, a prominent evangelical prince who had been unhappily married to the daughter of Duke George of Saxony and had been resorting to a succession of prostitutes, finally decided to end his immoral conduct by marrying Margaret von der Sale. The theologian Martin Bucer interceded in his behalf with Luther and Melanchthon, who reluctantly gave their approval to the proposed marriage on condition that the arrangements be kept secret. On March 4, 1540, the marriage took place. When it became widely known soon after, a scandal resulted." - cited as "Martin Luther, Luther's Works. ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmul T. Lehmann. 55 vols."

The online source for this (a PDF that is 26 pages long) can be found at: Luther's Authentic Voice on Polygamy. It is from a paper that was published in the Fall 2015/Spring 2016 Concordia Theological Journal, Vol. 3.

The article includes a set of interesting quotes by Luther concerning the subject. Here are a few:

• "[Even though] I do not wish to make it [polygamy] allowed, it must not be said that it is not allowed. It is certainly allowed; Scripture does not prohibit it." - From "Sermons out of Genesis"

• "Jacob married four wives .... What shall we say? If God commends him, it is necessary that we close [our] mouth and say that anything that pleases God pleases us .. .. Ought we then to do the same and imitate Jacob in this? No, look at the person, nor the works, if you are Jacob, do it, if not[, don't.]" - ibid.

• "Augustine and others who extol virginity are deceived. They are offended by the fathers who had a multitude of wives. Then immediately we fall into line and believe them, as if some angel had said so. Just as in this place, also in other places. they have gone astray. I hold the matrimonial life of Abraham, even if he had had ten wives, higher than the chastity of Jerome. Therefore I say this, lest we despise the state of marriage." - ibid

And of course, he said what you say he said as to not wanting it made legal, which is illustrated here: 

"As for me, I truly admit that I cannot prohibit it if someone wishes to marry several wives, nor is it repugnant to the Sacred Scriptures: in truth, however, 1 would not want such an example introduced among Christians in the first place, among whom it is proper to abstain even from things that are allowed, in order to avoid scandal, and for the integrity of life. which every .. where Paul requires."

 

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yet he performed a plural marriage.

I believe he only authorized one. I don't believe he performed it.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Stargazer

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

There is no good reason for the fascination with drinking beer to be the same as the fascination with LGBTQ stuff, if anyone has any fascination with LGBTQ stuff.  Drinking beer is totally different and totally unrelated to anything specifically LGBTQ.

You do realize you are the one that brought drinking beer and comparing it to LGBT issues right?

 

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

And I don't think there is anything left to reveal about LGBTQ stuff.

And yet for some reason you seem to keep bringing it up.  I would rather hear more about drinking beer and observing the sacrament at home.

You do know that you don't have to read or comment on a single thing I write if you are not interested in my point of view.  There is a lot of comments you make that I don't agree with.  But I still like hearing your point of view.  So I read your posts.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

You do realize you are the one that brought drinking beer and comparing it to LGBT issues right?

No, you apparently didn't understand why I quoted you.  I saw you talk about something it seemed you wanted to hear more about, which I quoted and then said Okay to, and then I mentioned some things I would like to hear more about.

I wasn't comparing what it seemed you wanted to hear more about to what I mentioned I wanted to hear more about.  

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

You do know that you don't have to read or comment on a single thing I write if you are not interested in my point of view.  There is a lot of comments you make that I don't agree with.  But I still like hearing your point of view.  So I read your posts.

I like hearing your point of view on some things, too, and I think I can relate to a lot of what you talk about, at least a little bit.  I'm just not as interested in talking about or hearing more about LGBTQ stuff and would rather focus on some other things.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I believe he only authorized one. I don't believe he performed it.

Sounds a lot like Presidents Woodruff, Snow, and Smith and their counselors between 1890 and 1904.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

I would rather hear more about drinking beer

Ahab, we've had some heady disagreements in the past, but I'm with you here, brother. Let's talk more about beer!

I visit two monasteries. One brews their own beer (a long Catholic monastic tradition). Their beers are great, and they place pictures of the brothers on the bottles:

It's always nice to take a swig and smile at the picture of a brother with whom you've prayed in chapel at 3:30 AM  

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ahab, we've had some heady disagreements in the past, but I'm with you here, brother. Let's talk more about beer!

I visit two monasteries. One brews their own beer (a long Catholic monastic tradition). Their beers are great, and they place pictures of the brothers on the bottles:

It's always nice to take a swig and smile at the picture of a brother with whom you've prayed in chapel at 3:30 AM  

From what I understand of our Lord's reasoning on why it is wise to avoid strong drink... because some people would enjoy it so much that they would want to drink a lot of it, at the same time sometimes, which could result in them getting drunk or addicted to it, instead of drinking in moderation, and how if it could lead to drunkenness or addiction because of a lack of self control then it would be better for all of us to avoid drinking it, even if some of us could use self control, because some people still would not... it is supposedly better for all of us to avoid drinking it to make it easier for those who won't use self control if they were to drink it and like it.  Because if those who wouldn't use self control saw others drinking it, they would want to drink it too, if they liked it.

Mild drinks, such as beer, are not in the same category as strong drink, though, even though mild drinks may be fermented and contain some alcohol, and yet for some reason some of "the brethren" have taken it upon themselves to ban beer.  And while I understand our Lord as given some authority to some of those "brethren" so that they have some authority to administer policies in our Lord's church, I would like to know more about our Lord's feelings about beer.  Because if I felt our Lord was okay with it, in moderation, I would drink some occasionally in moderation even if some of our "brethren" still were not in favor of people drinking beer.

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 2/17/2021 at 11:23 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

So first, I'm pointing this out and second wondering what it is that will be the next big story to hit the fan or blow up the boards. Or it could be that I am just seeing random patterns in the clouds.

I don't expect it to be very big, but I fully expect something to happen in our next Fast and Testimony meeting in 3 Sundays.  I expect to see a handful of people report on the number of times they heard the name "Rush Limbaugh" in their testimonies.   Honestly, I'd be quite surprised to not hear that name from the podium in my own ward.

[gopher]

Well, the church does have on its home page the story of a gay AND black man who was baptized into the church a few years ago.  That's kinda big, isn't it?  He represents TWO groups of people that are supposed to be angry at the church.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/we-all-have-a-place-in-the-lords-church

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I don't expect it to be very big, but I fully expect something to happen in our next Fast and Testimony meeting in 3 Sundays.  I expect to see a handful of people report on the number of times they heard the name "Rush Limbaugh" in their testimonies.   Honestly, I'd be quite surprised to not hear that name from the podium in my own ward.

Fortunately, I live in England and that's just about the last person I would expect to hear mentioned in a testimony over here. 

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I don't expect it to be very big, but I fully expect something to happen in our next Fast and Testimony meeting in 3 Sundays.  I expect to see a handful of people report on the number of times they heard the name "Rush Limbaugh" in their testimonies.   Honestly, I'd be quite surprised to not hear that name from the podium in my own ward.

So Rush Limbaugh is a "saint" worthy of testimony in your ward?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/17/2021 at 7:05 PM, JLHPROF said:

Yet he performed a plural marriage.

The Pope allowed Jewish plural marriages.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/17/2021 at 4:34 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

I wonder if the rest of Christianity would agree with you...I'm guessing not.

 

On 2/17/2021 at 4:59 PM, JLHPROF said:

The Lutheran's might.  Luther had no issue with it.

Neither did John Calvin.  Luther and Calvin realized that Holy Scripture did not proscribe polygamy.  So did the Pope, but he would only allow Jews to practice plural marriage in cases of childlessness of the first wife.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

We have heard this argument for years.   If you were to take your argument out in the real world away from your Mormon bubble, how many people would agree that the definition of marriage in the United States includes polygamist marriages?

Even if you are right and Americans in the 1830's accepted that the definition of marriage included as many wives as a man wanted.  (Something that history just doesn't even come close to being able to support).

Not sure that is what Scott was suggesting.  Not at all.  As any historian or anthropologist could tell you, polygamy has been quite common historically, and is current in the Muslim world.

13 hours ago, california boy said:

 So what.  Definitions change all the time.  Every year, a new dictionary is published with new definitions of words that have been in existence as long as the word marriage has.  We don't use the same definitions as ancient times.  Just who controls all of those new definitions of words?  Do you think the Church is entitled to control how words are defined?  Time to move on Scott.  Outside your Mormon bubble, the definition of marriage includes gay couples. Polygamist relationships in the United States are not considered marriages. 

Correct.  Definitions do change all the time, and the notion of non-traditional marriage has become almost quotidian in the USA.  The change in the law permitting gay marriage applies equally well to other forms of non-traditional marriage equally well.  Or are you going to oppose polygamy now?  Suddenly you no longer accept "equal protection of the laws"?

[LoudmouthMormon]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

So Rush Limbaugh is a "saint" worthy of testimony in your ward?

With your use of quotes, yes, pretty much, for one or two members.   And I know my ward isn't the only one.   From an LDS-themed comedy album released a few years ago - the song "A Few of the testimonies"

Quote

Elder Jones gripes that less-actives frustrate 'im
Nine CTR's thank the same things verbatim
Brother McPhie knows Rush Limbaugh is true
And The Da Vinci Code may well be too

It can't be satire if nobody recognizes it.

Edited February 19, 2021 by LoudmouthMormon