Catholic Church Prohibits Blessings of Same-Sex Unions

[poptart]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

100% agreeing with you. 

Whew lol, just asking.  That's the part of me where I do try to be fair, while I can't stand how a lot of religious folks here impose things on others I still say they have the right to their beliefs.  Sadly the other side pushes too much sometimes.  It really does blow my mind how surprised people here are, gee what did you think the pope would do?  

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't want to rain on your parade, much, but there is only one correct "way" to follow Christ correctly and every other way is not the right way because it leaves something out that is important and essential to being fully saved and perfected like Christ.

That is simply not true.  

Just remember the pharisees in the time of Christ thought THEY were the only one correct "way" to worshiping God.  Christ didn't think much of them or their organization.   Being in an organization does not mean you have found the only way back to Christ.  

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Which is where some organization is needed to sort everything out and make it clear what is right and why every other way is wrong.  Religion without organization is nothing but chaos, as the world's imperfect religions aptly demonstrate.

Not sure what you mean by this.  As I see it, organized religion is the definition of a chaotic mess.  There seems to be very little consensus of what is "the right way" is.  The only thing they seem to agree on is everyone is wrong except them.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Much like how many of today's stake presidents, relief society presidents, temple presidents/matrons, apostles, etc. were 18-29 in the 60s.
Yes.  Much as we do now.
I don't follow.  Are you suggesting that "Common Consent" can be used in lieu of or to supplant revelation?

You do realize how difficult it is to respond to such a line item parsed post?

Yes, today's leaders who were 18-29 in the 60's were the same ones urging President Kimball to pray for the revelation he received at the end of the 70's.  The ones who changed opinion based on societal changes such as the Civil Rights movement.  It wasn't those in their 50s & 60's in 1970 that were pushing for change.  It rarely is.
It was the 18-29 year olds in the early part of the twentieth century that were pushing to modify the garments.  Joseph F. Smith  was irritated by the push and absolutely refused right till he died in 1918.  Heber J. Grant didn't agree and changed them in 1923.

Today's 18-29 year olds will be the ones pushing future prophets to pray for revelation on same sex marriage for the same reason.  The question is do we think in a decade or so such a revelation would come?

Quote

Joseph Smith said, “I will give you a key that will never rust, if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.”

I don't see the Church altering the Law of Chastity to accommodate same-sex marriage or homosexual behavior.  

And Joseph is right.  That's why I am still a member.
And I hope you are right but I doubt it.  See, I give the Early Christian Fathers the benefit of the doubt.  They also probably spent hours and hours in prayer and were convinced God instructed them to make changes to the early Church.  At least at first.  I'd wager the Catholic Church today still feels that way.
So when you tell me the leaders of the Church won't act without revelation that doesn't give me the same confidence that you have that error can't creep in.  Believing revelation was received has never been a guarantee against error.

Edited March 18, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

Just now, california boy said:

That is simply not true.  

Uh, yeah, actually it is true.

Just now, california boy said:

Just remember the pharisees in the time of Christ thought THEY were the only one correct "way" to worshiping God.  Christ didn't think much of them or their organization.  

Because they weren't doing things the right way, just as the Catholic church and every other church on this planet wasn't worshipping God correctly between the great apostasy and the restoration.

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Being in an organization does not mean you have found the only way back to Christ.  

It does when it is the one and only true church of Jesus Christ.  And I think it's a bit strange that you don't seem to know that there is only one right way to worship God.  What are you thinking?  That any and every way is the right way?

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Not sure what you mean by this.  As I see it, organized religion is the definition of a chaotic mess.

Organization and chaos are opposing sides on the same issues.    With one side upholding only one way as the right way while the other side upholds any and every way as the right way.  And you think the organized way upholds chaos??? Explain, please.  

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

 There seems to be very little consensus of what is "the right way" is.  The only thing they seem to agree on is everyone is wrong except them.

The right way IS the right way while every other way is not the right way.  There is only one right way to worship Christ.  The other ways are "a" way but they are not the "right" way.  I think maybe you just need to keep trying to understand the way God works.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Being in an organization does not mean you have found the only way back to Christ.  

But Christ was very clear that there is only one way to find.  A very straight and narrow way that few will find.

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But Christ was very clear that there is only one way to find.  A very straight and narrow way that few will find.

No one is disputing that.  What has been in dispute for 2000 years is what that way is.

[california boy]

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Uh, yeah, actually it is true.

Because they weren't doing things the right way, just as the Catholic church and every other church on this planet wasn't worshipping God correctly between the great apostasy and the restoration.

It does when it is the one and only true church of Jesus Christ.  And I think it's a bit strange that you don't seem to know that there is only one right way to worship God.  What are you thinking?  That any and every way is the right way?

Organization and chaos are opposing sides on the same issues.    With one side upholding only one way as the right way while the other side upholds any and every way as the right way.  And you think the organized way upholds chaos??? Explain, please.  

The right way IS the right way while every other way is not the right way.  There is only one right way to worship Christ.  The other ways are "a" way but they are not the "right" way.  I think maybe you just need to keep trying to understand the way God works.

 I am glad you think you are in some special Christ-approved organization and the rest of the world is wrong.  It probably makes you feel very happy.  I personally don't share that belief.  Fortunately, the only opinion that matters is Christ's.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

No one is disputing that.  What has been in dispute for 2000 years is what that way is.

As long as everyone knows there is only one right way they will at least be aware that they should be looking for that one right way.  Much better than anyone thinking that it doesn't matter which way a person worships God or that all ways are the right way.

[ksfisher]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just remember the pharisees in the time of Christ thought THEY were the only one correct "way" to worshiping God.  Christ didn't think much of them or their organization.

I don't think the fact that Christ did not approve of the pharisees precludes the idea that Christ could approve of a church today.  Because one group got it wrong doesn't mean another can't get it right.

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Today's 18-29 year olds will be the ones pushing future prophets to pray for revelation on same sex marriage for the same reason.  The question is do we think in a decade or so such a revelation would come?

I don't think such a revelation will come.  I don't think same-sex behavior and SSM are congruent with the Plan.

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Quote

Joseph Smith said, “I will give you a key that will never rust, if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.”

I don't see the Church altering the Law of Chastity to accommodate same-sex marriage or homosexual behavior.  

And Joseph is right.  That's why I am still a member.

And I hope you are right but I doubt it.  See, I give the Early Christian Fathers the benefit of the doubt.  They also probably spent hours and hours in prayer and were convinced God instructed them to make changes to the early Church.  At least at first.  I'd wager the Catholic Church today still feels that way.

I'm not sure how much revelation was given to the Early Christian Fathers.  The loss of priesthood authority, and hence of revelation to be given to the Church, creates a substantial difference between the ECFs then and the Brethren now.

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So when you tell me the leaders of the Church won't act without revelation that doesn't give me the same confidence that you have that error can't creep in.  Believing revelation was received has never been a guarantee against error.

I am not positing "a guarantee against error."  I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  

I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted.  I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."  I think that's right.

I am open, in a de minimis sense, to the possibility that the Brethren altering the Law of Chastity and the Church's position on same-sex marriage.  But honestly, I just don't worry about it.  I don't see that as ever happening.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."  I think that's right.

I take that statement as a very simplistic point blank statement about what the Lord will not permit someone to do.  Permit meaning to allow or authorize.  As if the Lord would not say to someone, Sure, I will permit you to lead those people astray.

Nope, that's not part of our Lord's program.  Our Lord doesn't want anyone to lead anyone else astray so of course he would not authorize/permit it.  What kind of intelligent person would think our Lord would authorize that?  Think, people, think.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Quote

I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."  I think that's right.

I take that statement as a very simplistic point blank statement about what the Lord will not permit someone to do.  Permit meaning to allow or authorize.  As if the Lord would not say to someone, Sure, I will permit you to lead those people astray.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Nope, that's not part of our Lord's program.  Our Lord doesn't want anyone to lead anyone else astray so of course he would not authorize/permit it. 

I guess we differ a bit.  I think it's a matter of the Lord not letting such a thing happen.  Not in a it-happened-but-does-not-conform-to-God's-will kind of way, but rather . . . well, as Pres. Woodruff put it:

Quote

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

I repose a fair amount of trust in the Brethren, and quite a bit more trust that the Lord will keep the Church on track overall.  This is so even if and when the Brethren mess up.  And I don't think that messing up will ever amount to leading the Church "astray."

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

What kind of intelligent person would think our Lord would authorize that?  Think, people, think.

I'm not thinking of what the Lord will authorize, but what He will permit / allow / let happen.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think the fact that Christ did not approve of the pharisees precludes the idea that Christ could approve of a church today.  Because one group got it wrong doesn't mean another can't get it right.

I agree.  It also doesn't mean they did get it right.  The pharisees were absolutely sure they were acting for God, they ended up crucifying him.  Being absolutely sure that you speak for God doesn't make it true. 

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess we differ a bit.  I think it's a matter of the Lord not letting such a thing happen.  Not in a it-happened-but-does-not-conform-to-God's-will kind of way, but rather . . . well, as Pres. Woodruff put it:

I repose a fair amount of trust in the Brethren, and quite a bit more trust that the Lord will keep the Church on track overall.  This is so even if and when the Brethren mess up.  And I don't think that messing up will ever amount to leading the Church "astray."

I'm not thinking of what the Lord will authorize, but what He will permit / allow / let happen.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, we apparently differ in how we understand those words.  I don't think our Lord would ever violate our agency... the agency of any man or woman.  And isn't anyone who says something false leading others away from the truth, in some sense?

Maybe what President Woodruff meant is that no man has the power to lead anyone anywhere... astray or otherwise...since we all make our own decisions about who we choose to follow.

No man who attempts to lead the children of men astray can do it?  What place do you think President Woodruff thought he was in?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I've been looking at data, not just opinion polls and anecdotes.

Our conversion rates have slowed considerably.  Hard to say whether the downward trend will continue.

The overall membership increase rate has been trending downward for about thirty years:

Yes, it has, but that is not the same as the charts of rates of loss of members in the mainstream, woke churches.  Those churches are dying, not simply slowing in growth.  You are comparing apples and oranges, and ignoring the fact that linear projections are notoriously unlike reality.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Activity rates seem to be going down (see the brown line) :

The birth rate is trending down:

 

While there will always be a greater number of "children of record" than "children of record baptisms," the gap between the two has been fairly significant for a while now:

The number of name removals fluctuates a lot by year, but has been fairly significant for a while now:

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

Linear projections are notoriously unlike reality.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

1. I initially said: "I note that some of the commentary in the above articles seems to presume that the Catholic Church is a sociopolitical construct.  That its doctrines are, or should be, predominantly based on what is sociopolitically popular.  I don't think that works."

I pointed to specific features of Roman Catholicism which make it popular, even despite its horrible record on sex abuse, and you have ignored those signs of popularity.  You suggest that their failure to budge on female priesthood or on homosexuality (despite having large numbers of homosexual priests) makes them unpopular.  Yes, they are unpopular with large groups of woke people.  But does that matter at all?  The Catholic Church remains large and powerful (the largest Christian Church in the world), despite widespread bankruptcies and scandals.  You might want to take a lesson from that fact.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

2. You responded: "Why shouldn't it be popular and successful?  Isn't Roman Catholicism largely a sociopolitical construct anyhow?  Indeed, the RC Church has made a huge change from the days when it sought to obtain civil and criminal laws against conduct not in keeping with their doctrine.  Why doesn't that earn it some kudos?  LDS change in a similar way has not been rewarded.  The LDS Church is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't."

3. You also said this: "Seems to me that sociopolitical popularity might be a formula for success.  After all, the RC Church has pomp, circumstance, and mystique.  Sociopolitical popularity might just give it an edge."

4. I responded (in response to your "formula for success" statement above) : "I dunno.  There are all sorts of things that are sociopolitically popular but immoral (lax sexual ethics, for example), and others that are profoundly moral while being sociopolitically unpopular (disagreement with same-sex marriage being a good example)."  I then cited data indicating that churches who when "soft on LGBTQI issues" just ended up accelerating the rate of an already-in-place decline in membership/activity.

5. You also said: "Being sociopolitically popular has nothing to do with God."

6. I also said this (responding to your "nothing to do with God" statement above) : "Well, it might be.  Sociopolitical popularity can have a significant impact on one's relationship with God."  I then gave statistics 

7. You then said that my "thinking on this is upside down and backwards."

So is the Church "sociopolitically popular?"  Well, it's a mixed bag.  Significant percentages of everyday Joes have non-favorable perceptions of us (only a bare majority of Republicans, only a minority of Democrats, only 42% of blacks, etc.).  And yet we are still able to persuade people to join the Church.  However, the rate of growth in the U.S. has slowed considerably (see here).

But regardless of whether we are "sociopolitically popular," is having that a "formula for success?"  Well, yes.  We need to persuade people that their lives will improve if they accept and live in accordance with the precepts of the Restored Gospel.  However, seeking such popularity cannot come by way of capitulating on the doctrines.  First of all, we claim to be guided by revelation, and that has to mean sticking with such guidance regardless of its "popularity."  Second, capitulating will likely not result in an improvement, and would instead likely yield the same results seen in other religious groups who have capitulated.......................

You seem to interpret "sociopolitical popularity" with "capitulating on the doctrines," while I am interpreting it within pragmatic measures of increase for LDS and decline for many others.  You see wokeness as popular, while I see it as a nihilistic and impotent dead end.  The proof is in the pudding:  Failure is most apparent among the woke religions.  Those who do not capitulate survive to preach another day.  Linear projections are notoriously unlike reality.

[HappyJackWagon]

On 3/17/2021 at 7:06 PM, Amulek said:

That's kind of what I thought about Sir Elton's criticism - or at least, your summation of it (which I assume is substantively accurate). 

If the Catholic Church is hypocritical for not blessing gay marriages but has no objection to gays when it comes to the marketplace, then it seems to me that there are only two ways to remedy said hypocrisy: (1) start blessing gay unions, or (2) actively discriminate against gays in the marketplace.

Like I said before, I doubt the LGBTQ community would think any higher of the Catholic Church if they were to go with Option 2. 

 

And in my mind it's more like a Christian bookstore which sells anti-Mormon literature but also refuses to discriminate against Latter-day Saints when it comes to hiring and promoting talent. 

 

You really can't see the silliness of this argument can you?

So according to you the Catholic church would be discriminating against gays if they didn't invest in a movie about an openly gay man in a gay marriage? So that would mean that everyone who didn't invest in that movie is also discriminating against gays, right? Dude, give that some more thought.

Personally, I don't expect them to bless gay unions. But it is strange that they would invest in and make money from media about a gay man and his gay union. If you disagree, fine. But your argument is really terrible.

[HappyJackWagon]

On 3/17/2021 at 5:15 PM, bluebell said:

It’s a weird way to make money though if that’s all they wanted.  Rocket man is considered solidly successful, in its genre (movies about musicians) but it was never a given.  The subject matter probably made it less likely than more likely to be a money maker.

 

So wouldn't that make it even more hypocritical of the church? If they were just being greedy and in it for the money, it's certainly unseemly but one can at least understand the motivation. But if they didn't even expect to make money on the investment it wasn't really an investment. it was more of a check written to promote a film that promotes a lifestyle that they openly oppose. That doesn't make any sense.

[Amulek]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You really can't see the silliness of this argument can you?

I'm not above making silly arguments, but I don't believe I'm doing so here. 

 

Quote

So according to you the Catholic church would be discriminating against gays if they didn't invest in a movie about an openly gay man in a gay marriage?

If the only reason they refused to invest in the project was because Elton John is gay, then yes - that would be discrimination. It's not illegal discrimination, but it's discrimination none the less. As a private entity, they can invest their money in whatever project(s) they want. And when doing so, they are free to discriminate against gays, or Latter-day Saints, or whoever else they want when it comes to deciding where that money goes.

 

Quote

So that would mean that everyone who didn't invest in that movie is also discriminating against gays, right? Dude, give that some more thought.

Everyone who has millions and millions of dollars - enough to approach Paramount and invest in multiple projects - all of those people who go into the room and say, 'Hey, we want to throw some money into pipeline, but we don't want it to go to any projects that are either about or could in any way positively portray gays' are discriminating. Do you disagree?

 

Quote

Personally, I don't expect them to bless gay unions.

Neither do I. 

 

Quote

But it is strange that they would invest in and make money from media about a gay man and his gay union.

And I think it is similarly strange for a gay man who has been shopping his biopic for 20 years now to turn around, well after the film has been completed / released, and then complain about the very people who helped get that project created. 

If the Catholics are hypocrites for giving him the money in the first place, what does that make him for taking it?

 

[Amulek]

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So wouldn't that make it even more hypocritical of the church?

We keep saying "church," but it wasn't actually the Catholic Church who made the investment. It was a global investment fund whose majority holdings happen to come from the Vatican.

The investment fund went to Paramount and dropped something like 4 million Euros which were used on two projects: Rocketman and the last MIB film. 

It's not clear how much oversight (if any) the Catholic Church actually had over those investments, which I think makes for another downgrade on the old hypocrisy meter.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, Ahab said:

Uh, yeah, actually it is true.

Because they weren't doing things the right way, just as the Catholic church and every other church on this planet wasn't worshipping God correctly between the great apostasy and the restoration.

It does when it is the one and only true church of Jesus Christ.  And I think it's a bit strange that you don't seem to know that there is only one right way to worship God.  What are you thinking?  That any and every way is the right way?

Organization and chaos are opposing sides on the same issues.    With one side upholding only one way as the right way while the other side upholds any and every way as the right way.  And you think the organized way upholds chaos??? Explain, please.  

The right way IS the right way while every other way is not the right way.  There is only one right way to worship Christ.  The other ways are "a" way but they are not the "right" way.  I think maybe you just need to keep trying to understand the way God works.

I'm sure you have no idea how absolutely arrogant this sounds but it is an excellent example of why "unaffiliated" is growing so quickly. The certitude expressed by many within organized religion doesn't exemplify faith like they think. It illustrates pride because the statement assumes everyone else in the world is either too stupid, non-spiritual, or unworthy to make an educated/spiritual decision for themselves and need you to tell them. 

[HappyJackWagon]

52 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I'm not above making silly arguments, but I don't believe I'm doing so here. 

If the only reason they refused to invest in the project was because Elton John is gay, then yes - that would be discrimination. It's not illegal discrimination, but it's discrimination none the less. As a private entity, they can invest their money in whatever project(s) they want. And when doing so, they are free to discriminate against gays, or Latter-day Saints, or whoever else they want when it comes to deciding where that money goes.

Everyone who has millions and millions of dollars - enough to approach Paramount and invest in multiple projects - all of those people who go into the room and say, 'Hey, we want to throw some money into pipeline, but we don't want it to go to any projects that are either about or could in any way positively portray gays' are discriminating. Do you disagree?

Neither do I. 

And I think it is similarly strange for a gay man who has been shopping his biopic for 20 years now to turn around, well after the film has been completed / released, and then complain about the very people who helped get that project created. 

If the Catholics are hypocrites for giving him the money in the first place, what does that make him for taking it?

 

 

That's an interesting question. I don't honestly know how the movie financing business works but I suspect Elton would shop his story to a studio who would sign on and pay him for the rights to produce. From there the financing would be arranged between different studios, production companies and individuals. I doubt Elton was involved in approving who did or didn't invest in the movie, but I could be wrong about that. If he knowingly took money from the catholic church to make his movie then I'd agree that he was also hypocritical. But I doubt that's how it went down.

48 minutes ago, Amulek said:

We keep saying "church," but it wasn't actually the Catholic Church who made the investment. It was a global investment fund whose majority holdings happen to come from the Vatican.

The investment fund went to Paramount and dropped something like 4 million Euros which were used on two projects: Rocketman and the last MIB film. 

It's not clear how much oversight (if any) the Catholic Church actually had over those investments, which I think makes for another downgrade on the old hypocrisy meter.

 

OK. That's a good distinction. I didn't realize that.

So what IF the LDS church's investment arm Ensign Peak invested in something similar? Does it matter that they put their money into funds that go contrary to church teachings and policies? Or is it just "business" so that other stuff doesn't matter?

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So wouldn't that make it even more hypocritical of the church? If they were just being greedy and in it for the money, it's certainly unseemly but one can at least understand the motivation. But if they didn't even expect to make money on the investment it wasn't really an investment. it was more of a check written to promote a film that promotes a lifestyle that they openly oppose. That doesn't make any sense.

To answer your question I have to first start off by saying that I think one of the worst things about our current culture is that we've lost sight of how our relationship with people and with issues should be nuanced.  We're all white and black right now and it's not very healthy.  Social media says that either you are awesome and amazing or you are terrible and horrible (and you can go from awesome and amazing to terrible and horrible in a second and a half if you tweet the wrong thing). 

It's an immature way to see the world, where people are usually both awesome and terrible to one degree or another (as a side note, it makes perfect sense why we've landed in this immature space as a culture, seeing as how many of the major influencers and most socially vocal--those who lead the social media charges--don't even have fully developed brains yet).   

We've lost sight of our ability to love and respect someone and also disagree with their beliefs on a topic.  We can love and respect someone and also disagree with some of their personal choices.  We can believe that people should be loved and respected even if we also believed they are flawed or in the wrong or sinning.

So having said all of that, I can't speak for the church on why it supported that movie, but if they did it because they believe there is value in humanizing the lgbtq community and value in telling Elton John's story specifically (which is not just a story about a gay man being gay), I don't find that at all hypocritical.

Edited March 19, 2021 by bluebell

[smac97]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, it has, but that is not the same as the charts of rates of loss of members in the mainstream, woke churches.  Those churches are dying, not simply slowing in growth. 

I can go along with that.  My concern, though, is that we have a similar affliction as these "mainstream, woke churches," we just happen to have a stronger, healthier constitution than they do.

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are comparing apples and oranges, and ignoring the fact that linear projections are notoriously unlike reality.

Linear projections are notoriously unlike reality.

I acknowledge that.

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I pointed to specific features of Roman Catholicism which make it popular, even despite its horrible record on sex abuse, and you have ignored those signs of popularity. 

Perhaps you have a point.

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You suggest that their failure to budge on female priesthood or on homosexuality (despite having large numbers of homosexual priests) makes them unpopular.  Yes, they are unpopular with large groups of woke people.  But does that matter at all?  The Catholic Church remains large and powerful (the largest Christian Church in the world), despite widespread bankruptcies and scandals.  You might want to take a lesson from that fact.

You seem to interpret "sociopolitical popularity" with "capitulating on the doctrines," while I am interpreting it within pragmatic measures of increase for LDS and decline for many others.  You see wokeness as popular, while I see it as a nihilistic and impotent dead end.  The proof is in the pudding:  Failure is most apparent among the woke religions.  Those who do not capitulate survive to preach another day.  Linear projections are notoriously unlike reality.

Thank you for your thoughts.  I will give them some real consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[let’s roll]

On 3/18/2021 at 3:19 PM, california boy said:

Most of the people I know still identify as Christian, but don't identify with being affiliated with organized religion. Most of them have had enough of organized religion and see little value in it. Yet some are very spiritual and that spirituality evolves around Christ.   If you look at the pew reports referred to, it is unaffiliated that is growing the fastest, not atheist or agnostic.

I personally feel closer to Christ than I ever did as a member of the Church.  It is a much more honest relationship. 

Thank you for your time and for your thoughtful response.   Our faith (and devotion) is always best placed in Christ. 

[Amulek]

On 3/19/2021 at 10:05 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

That's an interesting question. I don't honestly know how the movie financing business works but I suspect Elton would shop his story to a studio who would sign on and pay him for the rights to produce. From there the financing would be arranged between different studios, production companies and individuals. I doubt Elton was involved in approving who did or didn't invest in the movie, but I could be wrong about that. If he knowingly took money from the catholic church to make his movie then I'd agree that he was also hypocritical. But I doubt that's how it went down.

Same here. Elton John didn't go out and actively solicit funding from the Catholic Church, nor did the Catholic Church go out and specifically target this particular project. 

In my mind, neither of them are hypocrites - though, obviously, Sir Elton feels differently. Just not differently enough to give them their money back.  

 

Quote

OK. That's a good distinction. I didn't realize that.

So what IF the LDS church's investment arm Ensign Peak invested in something similar?

The last Men in Black movie? Blech! 

Well, I guess I would probably be disappointed (but not terribly surprised) that they would pick such a stinker. Mormons aren't known for being great cinephiles. 

I'm just kidding. I know what you're saying. 

 

Quote

Does it matter that they put their money into funds that go contrary to church teachings and policies? Or is it just "business" so that other stuff doesn't matter?

Honestly, I think the level of culpability ought to be tied to the level of involvement and/or oversight. 

If I had to guess, I suspect the Catholic Church takes a much more laissez-faire approach to managing their investments than we do. 

In fact, I would be surprised if Ensign Peak had any significant media holdings outside of those necessary for producing and distributing content for the Church. 

But if it came out that a Church funded investment corporation had purchased stock in Disney or Paramount I wouldn't be bothered by that in the least.