Mormon women plan 'Wear Pants to Church Day’

[Janadele]

This thread has drifted way off topic. I will start a new topic in which to respond to any further questions re LDS.

"The Father of souls has endowed His children with the divine birthright of free agency; He does not and will not control them by arbitrary force; He impels no man toward sin; He compels none to righteousness. Unto man has been given freedom to act for himself; and, associated with this independence, is the fact of strict responsibility and the assurance of individual accountability. In the judgment with which we shall be judged, all the conditions and circumstances of our lives shall be considered. The inborn tendencies
due to heredity, the effect of environment whether conducive to good or evil, the wholesome teachings of youth, or the absence of good instruction--these and all other contributory elements must be taken into account in the rendering of a just verdict as to the soul's guilt or innocence. Nevertheless, the divine wisdom makes plain what will be the result with given conditions operating on known natures and dispositions of men, while every individual is free to choose good or evil within the limits of the many conditions existing and operative."--_Great Apostasy_, p. 21;

 

[RandFan]

"The Father of souls has endowed His children with the divine birthright of free agency; He does not and will not control them by arbitrary force; He impels no man toward sin; He compels none to righteousness.

If I put a gun to your head and tell you that if you don't do what I tell you then I will shoot you, then you still have the freedom of choice. You can choose to die. Mormons can choose to be punished by god.

Sex ISN'T sin.

 

[halleyscomet]

Yes Halley, it is official LDS teaching.

Being celibate does not mean being alone. Many who choose celibacy live happy worthwhile admirable lives, and will progress in the eternities according to their choices... as will we all.

Link please. I want a citation. I'm finding it hard to believe that even the LDS church would condemn a person with a vagina and undescended testes to a lifetime of celibacy just because reality doesn't conform to their binary image of sexuality.

Anecdotes on the web contradict your assertion Janadele, but then I don't put much stock in Internet anecdotes.

http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-10071.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/34760-transgender.html

Whatever "official" doctrine is, the actual practice appears to be far more liberal than you seem to think.

 

[halleyscomet]

This thread has drifted way off topic. I will start a new topic in which to respond to any further questions re LDS.

Not really. The thread started off about gender roles in the Mormon faith and is still about gender roles in the Mormon Faith. There's only so much you can say about wearing pants to church before the discussion loops back on itself.

 

[godless dave]

No, this is not in anyway comparable.

That the responsibility of the Priesthood was withheld from worthy males of Negro descent for a short period of time, was for a purpose known only to the Lord. It was His decision and His alone and not for mere mortals to question... nor is it their business how the Lord directs His Church.

And by the same token, "the Lord" could change his mind about homosexuality at any time, and his decision would not be for mere mortals to question.

Funny how some guy in Utah knows how the Lord wants to direct his church.

 

[halleyscomet]

And by the same token, "the Lord" could change his mind about homosexuality at any time, and his decision would not be for mere mortals to question.

Funny how some guy in Utah knows how the Lord wants to direct his church.

That's pretty much the point of the latter day saints. Later "revelations" often flat out contradict the book of Mormon and other official doctrine, but none of that matters to the faithful. Not only can they change doctrine on a dime, but when they do, the LDS rank and file act like it's ALWAYS been that way and bend over backwards to try and retrofit the new revelation into the older theology.

 

[Pup]

Because homosexual activity is against Eternal Law and the reasons for our mortal existence.

What an odd response, from a member of a church which believes that God can give ongoing revelations, so nothing must be eternal.

Church leaders made clear that they were wrong and did not stand behind their previous statements, when they accepted the 1978 relelation giving blacks the priesthood:

Bruce R. McConkie: There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation.

That's what members would (or should) be prepared to do if revelation came allowing gay marriage.

Rand... Remember legal status and laws of the land were different then than they are now.

Marriage between blacks and whites was legal in Massachusetts in 1863, for example. I think that's the kind of thing that Brigham Young meant when he said abolitionists could not help it.

 

[halleyscomet]

What an odd response, from a member of a church which believes that God can give ongoing revelations, so nothing must be eternal.

You have to keep in mind the doublethink involved. The ongoing revelations are not perceived as a real change in God's attitudes or values, but a clarification. That clarification is given in modern times because mankind was not ready for it earlier. Therefore, God has ALWAYS wanted racial equality withing the church hierarchy, but forbid it because mankind was not ready for the idea. (Insert "We've always been at war with Eurasia" joke here)

Because of this doublethink, they get to proclaim God is eternal and unchanging, revelation is ongoing and any contradictions are the result of flaws in human understanding of God. Contradictions that cannot be explained away in this manner are dismissed as "not official doctrine" even if they WERE official doctrine and enforced as such at one time.

Very little Mormon theology comes from the book of Mormon. Most of what they actually believe comes from teachings and sermons that came after that. When a doctrine is contradicted by an officially recognized "revelation" (The top ranking elders vote on it, I kid you not) it is no longer doctrine. It never WAS doctrine. It's shunted down the memory hole and retconned as the opinion of a man who was not speaking with divine authority.

This is why Janadele can dismiss so many inconvenient things as "not LDS doctrine." Once it's been contradicted, no matter how important it was in the past, it's now discarded. A cornerstone doctrine, such as the inferiority and cursed nature of dark skinned people, becomes a historical anomaly that offended God at the time, or even a myth spread by critics of the LDS.

TL;DR The LDS church has built a mechanism for moving the goal posts into the core of their theology.

 

[Pup]

Because of this doublethink, they get to proclaim God is eternal and unchanging, revelation is ongoing and any contradictions are the result of flaws in human understanding of God. Contradictions that cannot be explained away in this manner are dismissed as "not official doctrine" even if they WERE official doctrine and enforced as such at one time.

Perhaps by some Mormons, but it seems that others simply accept that revelations change things, in the same way that other Christians accept that the New Testament changed the Old. The Mormons just do it on an ongoing basis, and make a big deal about prophets still being on the earth.

Very little Mormon theology comes from the book of Mormon. Most of what they actually believe comes from teachings and sermons that came after that. When a doctrine is contradicted by an officially recognized "revelation" (The top ranking elders vote on it, I kid you not) it is no longer doctrine. It never WAS doctrine. It's shunted down the memory hole and retconned as the opinion of a man who was not speaking with divine authority.

Before you lecture me in bold about what Mormons believe, you might want to be aware that as I type this, there's one sitting in the next room.

I disagree with the highlighted part. I don't think any Mormons would deny that polygamy, for example, was once doctrine. The old revelations are still there in the D&C, even if they're obsolete. Sure, lots of church officials spout stuff that's denied by others or an embarrassment or whatever, but the canonical stuff is made official and put in the D&C, even if it becomes obsolete due to new canonical stuff.

 

[RandFan]

When a doctrine is contradicted by an officially recognized "revelation" (The top ranking elders vote on it, I kid you not) it is no longer doctrine. It never WAS doctrine. It's shunted down the memory hole and retconned as the opinion of a man who was not speaking with divine authority.

There is truth to what you are saying but it's not quite so black and white. First off, many Mormons don't even know which doctrines have been rejected. The Mormon doctrine of blood atonement (not to be confused with the atonement of Christ) was one of the many anachronisms that Mormons accepted even after the church rejected the idea (though they have never officially rejected the idea).

 

[Joey McGee]

moved post to the new LDS thread

 

[jsfisher]

Although an atheist, I have great admiration for those who I would characterize as intelligent people of faith. Intelligent people of faith find purpose and moral direction in their faith. Intelligent people of faith use their spiritual beliefs to supplement their understanding of the physical world, while not letting those beliefs supersede truth.

On the other hand, justifying bigotry, no matter how temporary, as "a purpose know only to the Lord" as the following passage does, would not be what I would have expected from any intelligent person of faith. This line of reasoning can be used to justify anything.

That the responsibility of the Priesthood was withheld from worthy males of Negro descent for a short period of time, was for a purpose known only to the Lord. It was His decision and His alone and not for mere mortals to question... nor is it their business how the Lord directs His Church.

 

[Janadele]

However, in this case it is true.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Why would a being as powerful as believers think their god is care about something as petty as human skin color? Why would a god even care about humans at all, for that matter?

 

[halleyscomet]

Perhaps by some Mormons, but it seems that others simply accept that revelations change things, in the same way that other Christians accept that the New Testament changed the Old. The Mormons just do it on an ongoing basis, and make a big deal about prophets still being on the earth.

Before you lecture me in bold about what Mormons believe, you might want to be aware that as I type this, there's one sitting in the next room.

I disagree with the highlighted part. I don't think any Mormons would deny that polygamy, for example, was once doctrine. The old revelations are still there in the D&C, even if they're obsolete. Sure, lots of church officials spout stuff that's denied by others or an embarrassment or whatever, but the canonical stuff is made official and put in the D&C, even if it becomes obsolete due to new canonical stuff.

I freely admit that my knowledge of Mormon doctrine is second hand, and some of it comes from members of a splinter group describing their opinion of the LDS and its beliefs. Imagine for a moment that someone who knew little of Catholic doctrine first learned about it through Jack Chick tracts and Fred Phelps sermons before setting out to learn what Catholics REALLY believe. No matter how aware one is intellectually of the bias in the original sources, it will, to an extent, color the subsequent research.

There is truth to what you are saying but it's not quite so black and white. First off, many Mormons don't even know which doctrines have been rejected. The Mormon doctrine of blood atonement (not to be confused with the atonement of Christ) was one of the many anachronisms that Mormons accepted even after the church rejected the idea (though they have never officially rejected the idea).

Mormons get weirder and weirder the more I learn about them. That does however do a lot to explain the events of "Under the Banner of Heaven."

 

[jsfisher]

However, in this case it is true.

Which part? Would that be the part where you declare Mormons of not-so-many generations ago to have been bigots, the part where you have posited a template for justifying any atrocity, or that your post isn't what one would have expected from an intelligent person of faith?

Since your posts reveal you as someone who lets belief trump truth, choice 3 is the most likely.

 

[Shiner]

.. Moved to that other thread...

 

[RoboTimbo]

delete

 

[Elind]

The Christian offshoot that recently began forbidding menstruating women from attending some temple services has a radical feminist element. These extreme leftists withing the Mormon Church have begun a SHOCKING movement that defies nature itself! They want WOMEN to wear PANTS to CHURCH!

Mormon women plan 'Wear Pants to Church Day’



Shocking!

This will surely shake the patriarchal faith to it's very core.

How come the suggestion is not that the men wear kilts to church; with or without undies?

 

[halleyscomet]

How come the suggestion is not that the men wear kilts to church; with or without undies?

Because men are not a second class minority in the church, forbidden from participating in certain rituals under various circumstances.