MrShorty Posted December 9, 2022 Author Share Posted December 9, 2022 @Duncan You're correct that we have a tension between "conservatism" and "progressivism" and how I am using them here. If it isn't clear from my OP, the whole thing I am looking at is how our conservatism compares to our progressivism, so the example overall works for me, but I wanted to point out the contrast between conservative and progressive. And then @The Nehor comes along and adds information, so that the whole enterprise feels a bit more progressive -- no singles (was there a time when singles could not serve) to some singles to more singles to all singles. Link to comment
MrShorty Posted December 9, 2022 Author Share Posted December 9, 2022 (edited) duplicate Edited December 10, 2022 by MrShorty Link to comment
smac97 Posted December 10, 2022 Share Posted December 10, 2022 3 hours ago, MrShorty said: tl:dr -- What examples from church history can you describe that show the church being "progressive" (encouraging change) rather than being "conservative" (resistant to change)? Serving a mission is likely to be far more "progressive" (life changing) in the life of a young man or woman than if he/she were to forego such service out of indifference, fear, laziness, etc. Encouraging self-governance in terms the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom is far more "progressive" than laissez-faire, if-it-feels-good-do-it, everyone-else-is-doing-it sentiments. Serving others in a calling, particularly one that pushes you out of your comfort zone, is more "progressive" than in refusing a calling. It changes you rather than allowing you to continue to Paying tithing as an expression of faith and love and devotion to God, and paying fast offerings to support one's fellow man with no thought of recognition or reward, is "progressive." Getting married and having children, and observing and fulfilling all the obligations associated with such duties, is far more "progressive" than focusing on self, on comfort, on money, etc. The Welfare and Humanitarian Programs of the Church. The family history efforts of the Church. Temple attendance. Self-reliance efforts. Ongoing service projects. Repentance. Repentance. Repentance. Repentance. 3 hours ago, MrShorty said: The question probably won't make sense without the following context. Up front, I want to emphasize that I am not using progressive/conservative in necessarily a political context, but in the sense that conservative behavior is resistant to change in favor of past traditions or the status quo, and progressive behavior is encouraging change, often rejecting past traditions or the status quo. Understood. Thank you for the up-front clarifications. 3 hours ago, MrShorty said: For context, in recent weeks I have been reflecting on some of the difficult, controversial issues I see in the church (priesthood and temple ban based on race figures prominently in my thoughts, but my goal is not to emphasize that particular issue). Okay. 3 hours ago, MrShorty said: In these reflections, I often find myself commenting that <blank> is more about the church being conservative (so that it isn't thrown about by every wind of doctrine as St. Paul put it) rather than being right. I wonder if the Church needs to take some time to consider whether to tear down Chesterton's Fence, or to keep it up. I wonder if this calculation typically takes longer for the Church as a whole as compared to an individual. I also wonder if individuals face a similar but inverted risk of being too willing to "change" to do what is popular (social trends being pretty heavy-handed these days) rather than being right. 3 hours ago, MrShorty said: As I have contemplated these things, in order to better understand my thinking, I have asked myself what I would be looking for to counter this somewhat cynical view of the way the church is governed. One thing would be to examine what the Brethren are doing. Are they remaining in cloistered offices in Salt Lake, or are they constantly traveling the world, meeting with members, meeting with representatives of other groups, getting regular briefings on various sociopolitical developments, and otherwise being actively engaged with the world around us? 3 hours ago, MrShorty said: One frequent response I give myself is to wonder if there are examples of the church being progressive. Examples where the church took on a traditional belief or policy or practice and changed it in a way that anticipated a problem with that tradition. The Church has spent the last many decades expressly condemning racial prejudice. In part, I think, to overcome "traditional beliefs" associated with justifications for the Priesthood Ban. The Church stopped missionary farewells/homecomings. BYU stopped its "Miss BYU" beauty pageant. The Church developed a fairly extensive set of policies and resources, including the bishop's helpline, to address allegations of sexual abuse. The Church's self-reliance courses are, in my view, pretty "progressive" in the sense you describe. Equalizing missionary expenses. There will almost always be a "reactive" element to even the most "proactive" efforts. The question is how fast on the update the organization is. 3 hours ago, MrShorty said: The idea being that examples of the church being progressive can counter the cynical belief that the church often acts more out of conservatism than what is right. Anyone with examples they want to share? See above. I think the Church was "slow" on matters of racial equality. Per some comments form Pres. McKay, it appears the Lord was involved in this particular slow roll. The Church was also fairly slow (as was most of society) in taking practical approaches to allegations of sexual abuse. IIRC, the bishop's helpline was established in 1995, yet we regularly hear horror stories going far earlier than that. It seems like the Church's approach to emotional/mental health of missionaries has been improved, but in a very drawn-out process. The Church continues to have an occasional "tin ear" when it comes to matters near and dear to the hearts of the Saints. Splashy public arguments over artwork, for example, ought to be entirely avoidable. Thanks, -Smac 1 Link to comment
CV75 Posted December 10, 2022 Share Posted December 10, 2022 5 hours ago, MrShorty said: tl:dr -- What examples from church history can you describe that show the church being "progressive" (encouraging change) rather than being "conservative" (resistant to change)? The question probably won't make sense without the following context. Up front, I want to emphasize that I am not using progressive/conservative in necessarily a political context, but in the sense that conservative behavior is resistant to change in favor of past traditions or the status quo, and progressive behavior is encouraging change, often rejecting past traditions or the status quo. For context, in recent weeks I have been reflecting on some of the difficult, controversial issues I see in the church (priesthood and temple ban based on race figures prominently in my thoughts, but my goal is not to emphasize that particular issue). In these reflections, I often find myself commenting that <blank> is more about the church being conservative (so that it isn't thrown about by every wind of doctrine as St. Paul put it) rather than being right. As I have contemplated these things, in order to better understand my thinking, I have asked myself what I would be looking for to counter this somewhat cynical view of the way the church is governed. One frequent response I give myself is to wonder if there are examples of the church being progressive. Examples where the church took on a traditional belief or policy or practice and changed it in a way that anticipated a problem with that tradition. The idea being that examples of the church being progressive can counter the cynical belief that the church often acts more out of conservatism than what is right. Anyone with examples they want to share? The Church is all about repentance, the most significant positive change for progress that we can make. An example is that I repented, still repent, and will continue repenting . Socially or politically speaking, the endowment of priesthood power is available to all willing men and women of any economic or cultural standing, and this is building Zion. 3 Link to comment
Rain Posted December 10, 2022 Share Posted December 10, 2022 3 hours ago, MrShorty said: @Rain As I understand it, missionary work being done online was mostly a response to the Covid pandemic, when most jurisdictions where our missionaries were serving made public, in person proselytizing illegal. This feels more like a reaction to the realities of a pandemic where we decided that our tradition of evangelizing was important enough to get creative about how we accomplished that task. My son was out before covid and when covid hit. He was doing a lot of the same online stuff before as when covid went down, just more of it after covid. Basically, a lot of it was in place before, but better utilized during. 3 hours ago, MrShorty said: Our use of various apps shows that we are willing to use new technologies for whatever purposes we find them useful for. Light the world and Just Serve seem like "programs" designed to help us with our traditions of trying to help and serve our fellow man. I think they show creativity in trying to achieve our goals, but I don't see anything that fundamentally changes our Christian ideal of helping and serving other people. With all due respect you didn't ask for fundamental changes to our Christian ideal. You asked for "where the church took on a traditional belief or policy or practice and changed it in a way that anticipated a problem with that tradition. " Each of those things I mentioned fit this. 3 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted December 10, 2022 Share Posted December 10, 2022 1 hour ago, MrShorty said: @Duncan You're correct that we have a tension between "conservatism" and "progressivism" and how I am using them here. If it isn't clear from my OP, the whole thing I am looking at is how our conservatism compares to our progressivism, so the example overall works for me, but I wanted to point out the contrast between conservative and progressive. And then @The Nehor comes along and adds information, so that the whole enterprise feels a bit more progressive -- no singles (was there a time when singles could not serve) to some singles to more singles to all singles. It wasn’t fast enough though. I probably would have stayed a temple worker if they hadn’t booted me. When the age shifted I was near the top of that threshold. When they opened it entirely I decided against it. There might be a bit of pique for them booting me out in the reason for it. 1 Link to comment
Popular Post JLHPROF Posted December 10, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted December 10, 2022 Ironically Christ was the progressive among the Jews, Sadducees and Pharisees etc. His "new" views of the law didn't win friends amongst the conservative community. Conservative and Progressive are silly terms. We're all either being more like God or less like God. Both left and right frequently move both nearer and further away. 6 Link to comment
Hamba Tuhan Posted December 10, 2022 Share Posted December 10, 2022 Brigham Young tried to get women to stop wearing pants. Didn’t work. At least one Native American tribe (in Cache Valley, from memory) essentially disappeared post-conversion because of rampant ‘intermarriage’. 1 Link to comment
MrShorty Posted December 10, 2022 Author Share Posted December 10, 2022 @smac97 and @CV75 While I expect that examples of personal progress could technically meet how I described the question, my main interest is in how the church as a group/institution changes, so I'm going to forego discussion of examples of personal progress. Link to comment
MrShorty Posted December 10, 2022 Author Share Posted December 10, 2022 @smac97 I think the idea of Chesterton's fences could be an interest aspect in this discussion. Depending on how the church approaches them, Chesterton's fences IMO tend to be one of those things that make us conservative, because we tend not to want to take down these fences until we (both leadership and members) are convinced that the reason for the fence is no longer "true." One subset of the topics I could see discussing are those where the church has dealt with Chesterton's fences and decided to keep them in place and when it has decided to take them down. As you say, this process might need time, which could explain why the church sometimes seems "slow" in making necessary changes. For those unfamiliar with what a Chesterton fence is and don't want to search it. A Chesterton fence is a "fence" (real or metaphorical) that doesn't seem to have an immediate purpose. Even if we cannot see the purpose, the very existence of the fence suggests to us that someone at some point in time believed the fence was needed. Our challenge is to decide whether to leave the fence up to respect the unknown (to us) reasons for the fence, or take it down. Of course, a part of avoiding being blown about by winds of doctrine is tied into that fear of making changes just because everyone else is changing. Another aspect of our conservatism is a strong "us vs. the world" attitude. When "the world" makes a change, we have a tendency to view that change with suspicion because of our general suspicion of "the world." IMO, this suspicion, at times, has caused us to hold on to our own false traditions so that we are slow to pick up on the good changes that "the [evil] world" is making. I think many of your other examples, and the way you include the seeming "slowness" of the church's implementation I think highlights what I am hoping to get out of this overall discussion. For example, you mention the church's policies around abuse and abuse prevention. I think these can be somewhat mixed examples for my purposes because they both highlight how the church can be willing to change, but also highlight the church's conservatism as it tends to resist the change longer than others (longer than "the world"). BSA implemented two-deep leadership in the '90s, I believe (and, therefore, it became a part of the BSA adjacent programs in the church). However, the church did not adopt a broader two-deep leadership policy across all of its youth organizations until 2019. This is a progressive move in that it represents change, but a conservative move in that the change took longer than "worldly" organizations. 2 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted December 10, 2022 Share Posted December 10, 2022 One of the problems with the Chesterton’s Fence bit is that it does seem to assume that the fence made sense at some point. Sometimes the original purpose for the fence was just stupid. 4 Link to comment
MrShorty Posted December 10, 2022 Author Share Posted December 10, 2022 @JLHPROF I agree that, in His day, Christ was the one proposing change (being progressive) to the prevailing beliefs and practices in the prevailing Judaic religion(s) of the day, who strongly resisted His proposed changes (were conservative). In what ways do you see the church being like the Jewish leaders of that time, and in what ways do you see the church being like the Savior and proposing and embracing changes to traditional beliefs and practices? I'm sorry that you dislike the conservative and progressive words, but I found them the easiest to use for communicating the ideas I was trying to convey (and still probably failed in some ways to make it clear). Whatever word you like, I agree that conservatism/"leaning right" sometimes leads us towards and sometimes away from God. Likewise, progressivism/"leaning left" sometimes leads us towards and sometimes away from God. It seems to me that the goal of a church or group of people who want to get close to God would need to figure out the best balance between "resisting change" (being conservative) and "seeking and embracing change" (being progressive). One of my concerns on my faith journey is that our church often seems to lean very heavily on the "resist change" side of the equation, which seems to cause it to miss or delay accepting changes that would bring it closer to God. My hope is to get an idea of what things from the church's history show a tendency to propose and embrace change and reject history and tradition. Link to comment
MrShorty Posted December 10, 2022 Author Share Posted December 10, 2022 @Hamba Tuhan I am not aware of either example you mention. Can you elaborate or provide more information? Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted December 10, 2022 Share Posted December 10, 2022 22 hours ago, MrShorty said: Examples where the church took on a traditional belief or policy or practice and changed it in a way that anticipated a problem with that tradition. The RESTORATION. Please notice we are neither Protestant nor Catholic. God is human We can be gods No original sin No Trinity, unity in purpose, not substance Heavenly Mother God is immanent God talks to individuals Covenant Path New scriptures, open canon. That's a start 3 Link to comment
BlueDreams Posted December 10, 2022 Share Posted December 10, 2022 On 12/9/2022 at 12:52 PM, MrShorty said: tl:dr -- What examples from church history can you describe that show the church being "progressive" (encouraging change) rather than being "conservative" (resistant to change)? The question probably won't make sense without the following context. Up front, I want to emphasize that I am not using progressive/conservative in necessarily a political context, but in the sense that conservative behavior is resistant to change in favor of past traditions or the status quo, and progressive behavior is encouraging change, often rejecting past traditions or the status quo. For context, in recent weeks I have been reflecting on some of the difficult, controversial issues I see in the church (priesthood and temple ban based on race figures prominently in my thoughts, but my goal is not to emphasize that particular issue). In these reflections, I often find myself commenting that <blank> is more about the church being conservative (so that it isn't thrown about by every wind of doctrine as St. Paul put it) rather than being right. As I have contemplated these things, in order to better understand my thinking, I have asked myself what I would be looking for to counter this somewhat cynical view of the way the church is governed. One frequent response I give myself is to wonder if there are examples of the church being progressive. Examples where the church took on a traditional belief or policy or practice and changed it in a way that anticipated a problem with that tradition. The idea being that examples of the church being progressive can counter the cynical belief that the church often acts more out of conservatism than what is right. Anyone with examples they want to share? I've read most, but I don't think these have been mentioned. Changes to who was eligible to be deacons based on age, way back in the day. This would technically be a shift to what's inferred about deacons in the bible and practice at that time, where youth held little to no formal role in the church institution. In order to better incorporate YM they changed the age. Temple wording and procedure to better fit the needs and understanding of the people. The change in the 90's (?) And the ones in the 2010's were some biggies. The last arguably clipped arguments or traditionalist ideas around marriage the focused more on men as heads of households sort of thing, following emphases over the years that focuses on equal partners with certain roles in marriage moreso than more conservative Christian views that still exist today. I would also say the change in a more accurate history that doesn't over gloss the past was a progressive shift from a more conservative one that is comon in the church but also the larger US culture. There's smaller ones as well that I think are more common. Small shifts to correct or better fit the needs of the larger church or correct issues/blindspots. These would fit the definition of progressive you've given IMHO. It may not fit to every member who leans strongly to progressiveness in a church setting, but that may not be a good way to gage it. That would be coming to a stance of "is this change enough?" With the enough being my or another's vision of what the ultimate change should be. The better would be to look at more conservative oriented members who prefer a traditionalist stance and seeing if this change was a stretch or led to some concern within them. That would get closer to "is this change from traditional assumptions?" If there's at least some who are squirming, trying to reinterpret the change to still give space to their view, or at least unexpected to them...it likely was more progressive. With luv, BD 2 Link to comment
CV75 Posted December 10, 2022 Share Posted December 10, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, MrShorty said: @smac97 and @CV75 While I expect that examples of personal progress could technically meet how I described the question, my main interest is in how the church as a group/institution changes, so I'm going to forego discussion of examples of personal progress. Being conservative can be progressive, such as when the Family Proclamation rightly anticipated a future changed tradition of marriage and gender identity. In recent years, the increasing emphasis on the “family-centered, Church-supported” approach is quite progressive in an increasingly politically tribalistic society. The Book of Mormon rightly anticipated and has cautionary messages concerning election denial (Helaman 1:8), historical exaggeration and revisionism (Mosiah 10:11-17) and secret combinations (Ether 8 ) and other symptoms, reinforcers and energizers of this political tribalism. Very progressive in the sense you might be looking for. Edited December 10, 2022 by CV75 2 Link to comment
Pyreaux Posted December 10, 2022 Share Posted December 10, 2022 22 hours ago, smac97 said: Serving a mission is likely to be far more "progressive" (life changing) in the life of a young man or woman than if he/she were to forego such service out of indifference, fear, laziness, etc. Encouraging self-governance in terms the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom is far more "progressive" than laissez-faire, if-it-feels-good-do-it, everyone-else-is-doing-it sentiments. Serving others in a calling, particularly one that pushes you out of your comfort zone, is more "progressive" than in refusing a calling. It changes you rather than allowing you to continue to Paying tithing as an expression of faith and love and devotion to God, and paying fast offerings to support one's fellow man with no thought of recognition or reward, is "progressive." Getting married and having children, and observing and fulfilling all the obligations associated with such duties, is far more "progressive" than focusing on self, on comfort, on money, etc. The Welfare and Humanitarian Programs of the Church. The family history efforts of the Church. Temple attendance. Self-reliance efforts. Ongoing service projects. Repentance. Repentance. Repentance. Repentance. Understood. Thank you for the up-front clarifications. Okay. I wonder if the Church needs to take some time to consider whether to tear down Chesterton's Fence, or to keep it up. I wonder if this calculation typically takes longer for the Church as a whole as compared to an individual. I also wonder if individuals face a similar but inverted risk of being too willing to "change" to do what is popular (social trends being pretty heavy-handed these days) rather than being right. One thing would be to examine what the Brethren are doing. Are they remaining in cloistered offices in Salt Lake, or are they constantly traveling the world, meeting with members, meeting with representatives of other groups, getting regular briefings on various sociopolitical developments, and otherwise being actively engaged with the world around us? The Church has spent the last many decades expressly condemning racial prejudice. In part, I think, to overcome "traditional beliefs" associated with justifications for the Priesthood Ban. The Church stopped missionary farewells/homecomings. BYU stopped its "Miss BYU" beauty pageant. The Church developed a fairly extensive set of policies and resources, including the bishop's helpline, to address allegations of sexual abuse. The Church's self-reliance courses are, in my view, pretty "progressive" in the sense you describe. Equalizing missionary expenses. There will almost always be a "reactive" element to even the most "proactive" efforts. The question is how fast on the update the organization is. See above. I think the Church was "slow" on matters of racial equality. Per some comments form Pres. McKay, it appears the Lord was involved in this particular slow roll. The Church was also fairly slow (as was most of society) in taking practical approaches to allegations of sexual abuse. IIRC, the bishop's helpline was established in 1995, yet we regularly hear horror stories going far earlier than that. It seems like the Church's approach to emotional/mental health of missionaries has been improved, but in a very drawn-out process. The Church continues to have an occasional "tin ear" when it comes to matters near and dear to the hearts of the Saints. Splashy public arguments over artwork, for example, ought to be entirely avoidable. Thanks, -Smac I always thought now that the Rebels and Revolutionaries became Fashion, would mean we'd be left as the true Rebels of our times. 1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted December 11, 2022 Share Posted December 11, 2022 1 hour ago, Pyreaux said: I always thought now that the Rebels and Revolutionaries became Fashion, would mean we'd be left as the true Rebels of our times. There is a joke amongst some progressive groups that when raising kids you should pretend to be Republican and conservative so when your kids rebel they go the same way you did. If you show your true selves they might rebel by listening to Nick Fuentes or Alex Jones. 1 Link to comment
CV75 Posted December 11, 2022 Share Posted December 11, 2022 2 hours ago, Pyreaux said: I always thought now that the Rebels and Revolutionaries became Fashion, would mean we'd be left as the true Rebels of our times. I see the Church as being neither conservative nor progressive, but "preventative" (as in the warnings from the Book of Mormon, preventing temporal and spiritual misery) for the sake of progress in a world/estate that ultimately destroys its inhabitants. Holding to the iron rod (eternal covenants) is neither a retention of past traditions and status quo (for the covenants have progressed in the dispensation of the fulness of times) nor is it a resistance to pressing and moving forward. It is the means by which we progress as a Church, and at the same time the means by which we protect what has been gained and the vehicle through which such progress is made. 1 Link to comment
Peacefully Posted December 11, 2022 Share Posted December 11, 2022 On 12/9/2022 at 3:23 PM, Duncan said: as far as I know they changed that policy maybe 5-6 years ago, my guess is they realized that marital status has nothing to do with working at the recommend desk. My bro is a worker and he's single I served as a single temple worker over 10 yrs ago, but not sure when it started. 3 Link to comment
Hamba Tuhan Posted December 11, 2022 Share Posted December 11, 2022 (edited) 16 hours ago, MrShorty said: I am not aware of either example you mention. Can you elaborate or provide more information? Regarding BY and pants, when I was studying in America, I once went to the Church History Museum. A temporary display showed some of the prophet's journals with explanatory notes for the exposed pages underneath. One was a sketch of 'pretty pants'. According to the note, Brigham had grown weary of watching women's skirts drag in the mud and had called in RS president (and wife) Eliza R. Snow to tell her that Latter-day Saint women needed to be more practical and less attached to the fashions of the world. Sis Snow said women would never wear pants because they liked feeling pretty, so Brigham had attempted to depict pretty pants. Regarding the second, I'm not finding what I remember reading about a tribe nearly disappearing through 'intermarriage', though I'm certain I read it. I wonder if it was related to Sagwitch and the Northern Shoshone? In any case, their story is interesting too: Quote In 1873, Sagwitch sought Church affiliation, and missionary George Washington Hill taught and baptized 101 of his Shoshone band. Three days later, Sagwitch traveled to Salt Lake City, met with Church leaders, and was ordained an elder. Later, in 1875, Sagwitch and his wife, Beawoachee, and another Shoshone couple met Wilford Woodruff at the Endowment House on Temple Square, received their endowments, and became the first American Indians to have their marriages sealed. The Church assisted Sagwitch in relocating his community to different farmland under a new amendment to the United States Homestead Act. Eventually Sagwitch and other Latter-day Saints established the town of Washakie, Utah, making them among the first Indians to own land under the amendment. When Sagwitch learned of plans to build the Logan Utah Temple in nearby Cache Valley, he endorsed the effort and led Shoshone work groups to the site. When the temple was completed, Sagwitch and his people periodically traveled to the Logan temple to do ordinance work for deceased family members, including those killed in the 1863 Bear River Massacre. Sagwitch died in 1887 and was buried in Washakie. One of his sons, Pisappíh Tímpin-poo (also known as Frank Warner), was likely the first American Indian to serve as a proselytizing missionary. Another son, Yeager, spoke at general conference in 1926 in the Shoshone language, the first conference address given in a language other than English. Sagwitch’s grandson, Moroni Timbimboo, was the first American Indian to be called as a bishop. He led the Washakie Ward from 1939 to 1945. In my searching, I also came across an account of the Catawba Nation in South Carolina, site of the first branch of the Church in that state. It's not really on topic but is still really interesting: Quote Elders Charles Robison and Henry Miller became the first missionaries to visit the Catawba Indian Reservation in May of 1883. That November, James Patterson, one of the tribal leaders, requested baptism. Four others joined him. On June 1, 1884, the Rock Hill Branch was formed with 31 members, 25 of them Indians, with James Patterson presiding. Trouble ensued, however, and mobs endangered the lives of both the elders and the families on the reservation. Public meetings ceased, and the branch was disbanded on November 30, 1884. The missionaries were forced into hiding in the woods, subsisting on only what the Catawbas could smuggle in to them. In spite of the threats, secret meetings were held at night and baptisms continued ... The tribe decided to take a stand and let it be known that the missionaries were welcome on the reservation and that the mobs were trespassers. Armed men stood guard at meetings and bodyguards were provided to protect the elders. On August 2, 1885, with 50 people present, the Catawba Nation Branch was formed. Alonzo Canty was called as branch president. The Catawba Branch was the first branch to be entirely staffed by Indians and is the oldest continuous branch of the Church in South Carolina ... By 1950, 97 percent of the Catawba Indian Nation belonged to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In April of that year, through the donations of missionaries and other members, Chief Blue and his wife made a trip to Utah to be sealed in the Salt Lake Temple. While there, they also attended general conference. During the Sunday morning session, President David O. McKay invited Chief Blue to come to the stand to share an impromptu testimony. “I have been a member of the Church, as you’ve been told, for 60-odd years. … I know this gospel is true. I have tasted the blessing and joy of God. I have seen the dead raised; I have seen the sick whom the doctors have given up, through the administration of the elders, they have been restored to life,” he testified. Edited December 11, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan 2 Link to comment
Ragerunner Posted December 11, 2022 Share Posted December 11, 2022 On 12/9/2022 at 3:27 PM, LoudmouthMormon said: Compared to other Christian churches, media with a religious bias, and LDS voting members of congress, this counts as progressive: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-statement There just ain't much conservative traditional God-fearin' churches out there making public statements about "preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters". The Lord's university is so crowbarred full of wokism, folks are wondering if it's still a part of the church: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/byu-releases-findings-from-its-diversity-and-equity-survey-designed-to-root-out-racism-on-campus Not to mention the General Presidency introducing a queer young woman at the 2021 BYU Women's Conference and giving her 6 minutes while they stand by smiling affirmingly, displaying as much love and acceptance as they found humanly possible: https://youtu.be/KtTwPQseMzU This post helped me realize how much the church is trying to live the two greatest commandments. 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Calm Posted December 11, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted December 11, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ragerunner said: This post helped me realize how much the church is trying to live the two greatest commandments. It can hard to balance the two though because the language of love varies quite a bit between people as well as the needs that when filled allow a person to feel loved. What church leadership and membership in general sees as loving may not be what those we are wanting to love (and hopefully are actually loving) receive as loving and the reverse is likely true as well. I think this is why some see threats in teachings that others see as life affirming and supportive. Edited December 11, 2022 by Calm 5 Link to comment
the narrator Posted December 13, 2022 Share Posted December 13, 2022 On 12/9/2022 at 1:00 PM, Duncan said: Single people can serve as temple workers, interracial marriages and in the Temple come to mind Huh? Until recently, young adult manuals still discouraged interracial dating. Interracial marriage was illegal in Utah until the 1960s. Hardly on the progressive end here. Link to comment
Duncan Posted December 13, 2022 Share Posted December 13, 2022 45 minutes ago, the narrator said: Huh? Until recently, young adult manuals still discouraged interracial dating. Interracial marriage was illegal in Utah until the 1960s. Hardly on the progressive end here. I live in Canada!!!!!!!!!!! if you find a member to fall in love with hey great! Canada never banned interracial marriages 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now