LDS II: The Mormons

[Chernobyl X1]

The Bishop of our ward (back in 1992) had his daughter marry a black man and the reception was held in our church (the actual marriages are performed in a temple). Is that good enough?

I hope you misspoke here. Are you saying the LDS arranges marriages?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Typical of anti-LDS. What could be more hateful.

...you may have missed a post...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9739771#post9739771

 

[Travis]

When you say you have the absolute, unchangeable truth of god then change what you say as truth it looks funny.

Doesn't the Pope also speak for God?

Better for who? The church? LDS members? The general public who were non LDS, The same public that saw the LDS as a racist organization?

For the church, I would say no. It would not have been better if the church didn't have this "revelation". It's fairly obvious that by the late '70's the society in the U.S. had changed dramatically from 20 years previous. The LDS had no choice but to adapt to the social changes. The LDS was wrong about it's practices calling blacks "cursed" and the public was aware of this racist stance in the '70's. It was nothing but an act of survival for them to call it a revelation to save face.

I find it amazing how the LDS members believe their "god" decided 113 years after slavery ended, blacks were suddenly ok now. Yet for 113 years, they were perfectly fine with their policies.

*snort* No Mormon I knew actually thought it was God changing his mind. Everyone knew this was a church decision.

It is sort of like how they take all the "history" of the Book Of Mormon with a grain of salt.

Here's two questions for you. When, do you believe the church will give up the sexism ghost and let women become priests? And will it be another flip-flop revelation from the Mormon god that will allow it?

That will change probably some time in the next few decades. Or not. It will change when it is seen as a problem for the church brand.

Of course how many other Christian denominations also don't allow women into the holy ranks? Many of them seem to be doing well so far.

I hope you misspoke here. Are you saying the LDS arranges marriages?

What? No. How could you read it like that?

She met the man at college.

 

[poblob14]

Doesn't the Pope also speak for God?

Only sometimes, and probably not since 1950. I think the Pope upgraded his cell phone firmware and lost some of his contacts.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I hope you misspoke here. Are you saying the LDS arranges marriages?

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Travis meant that "he had the experience of his daughter marrying a black man," not, "...he made his daughter marry a black man..."

 

[Craig4]

Typical of anti-LDS. What could be more hateful.

Brigham Young talking about black people.

 

[Cat Tale]

LDS and Social Issues

The following is from the homosexual thread which I decided to post here (since the moderator requested we keep LDS stuff over here), it covers social issues and the Church, so technically it could go either way. I'll give a brief account up to now.

My original post 328 I'm not going to quote it because it's rather lengthy and I'd rather people see it in context, by going to the link. Olowkow responded in post 329

... Is there a danger of being in trouble as a member for taking your approach and speaking out in favor of redefining the institution of marriage? Are these two separate factions ... of LDS that exhibit these disparate views ...

To which I responded with post 359 No. Contrary to what some believe, LDS are allowed to have their own opinions and do their own research. Just as long as I don't go around saying the LDS Church endorses it. Janadele apparently disagreed. Her post 452

YES.

I then came back with post 484 detailing Church policy.

Later into the night I did some more research on my point of view from a LDS perspective, and was amazed at what I found. What I found was that I was right. I had said in post 359 that "my gut tells me that attitudes like mine are out there sprinkled within the Church, but not widespread, except maybe in areas where there's a large gay population and/or college wards."

In 2012 there was a "Great Debate" between College Democrats and College Republicans at BYU and it was sponsored by the BYU Political Review. During the event it was pointed out by the student Democrats that "many Mormons find the Democratic Party attractive partly because of the party's strong emphasis on social equality and cooperation both nationally and internationally." So according to Janadele all the College Democrats at BYU must be in trouble too, especially cause they were speaking out against Mitt Romney, while saying that!

In addition a BYU professor of philosophy co-edited a book entitled Common Ground-Different Opinions: Latter-day Saints and Contemporary Issues, by Justin F. White (editor) and James E Faulconer (editor). The description of the book is from Amazon.com:

There are many hotly debated issues about which many people disagree, and where common ground is hard to find. From evolution to environmentalism, war and peace to political partisanship, stem cell research to same-sex marriage, how we think about controversial issues effects how we interact as Latter-day Saints. In this volume various Latter-day Saint authors address these and other issues from differing points of view. Though they differ on these tough questions, they have all found common ground in the gospel of Jesus Christ and the latter-day restoration. Their insights offer diverse points of view while demonstrating we can still love those with whom we disagree.[emphasis added]

The fact that BYU college Democrats are debating this issue, and a BYU professor has co-edited a book that talks about difference of opinions on social issues, I think this is more widespread than I initially thought. The point is, I'm aware of other LDS and their mixture of beliefs and thoughts. I'm aware that it's okay to have my own thoughts and do my own research. Then again, I joined in a college ward.

Janadele you've been a member probably about 25 years (based on your posts). Have you never run into LDS who think differently than you? That's extremely hard for me to believe.

 

[halleyscomet]

"As I say, it never ceases to amaze me how gullible some of our Church members are"
- Harold B. Lee, "Admonitions for the Priesthood of God", Ensign, Jan 1973

Apparently there is a Mormon Snopes:

HolyFetch.com is the website for Mormon urban legends,

LDS gossip, and other latter-day rumors and folklore.

Some of those legends are doozies.

HolyFetch.com creator spills the beans on Mormon myths

"I'm willing to bet there are a bunch of myths for any group or people," he said. "But there might be a little bit more of it in the LDS Church because there is so much to play off of."

Mormons also tend to "borrow" urban legends from other cultures or groups by adding a Mormon "twist" to an existing legend. For example, is Cain the real Bigfoot?

"There are tons of myths out there about Bigfoot, so Mormons have just found a way to make it relate to them," he said.

Seminary teachers seem particularly grateful for the website, and he gets letters from them thanking him for providing a reliable source to address the rumors their students bring to class.

 

[Cat Tale]

Correction.

So according to Janadele all the College Democrats at BYU must be in trouble too, especially cause they were speaking out against Mitt Romney, while saying that! :eye-popp

I just wanted to clarify a mistake I made in this sentence, it is not all the CD at BYU, as the majority of the BYU CD stand against same-sex marriage. But there are many who stand for same-sex marriage. So it should read "many of the College Democrats" not "all." My apologies.

 

[Janadele]

Cat Tale, There are over Fifteen million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints none of whom dictate nor determine the doctrines, teachings and beliefs of the LDS Church to which you profess to belong... including Professors at BYU, which is a University not a Temple. Among so many there may be those who agree with you, and who are well along the pathway to apostacy. It is irrelevant. We know the tares and the wheat are growing together till the harvest and some have more understanding, knowledge, and worthiness than do others.

 

[Olowkow]

The following is from the homosexual thread which I decided to post here (since the moderator requested we keep LDS stuff over here), it covers social issues and the Church, so technically it could go either way. I'll give a brief account up to now.

<snip to save bytes>

Your extended responses are greatly appreciated. I'm less confused as a result about what is going on here in these threads, but I'm still very disappointed in Utah's religiously biased involvement in current affairs.

One of my oldest friends is originally from a Provo and Salt Lake extended family of Mormons, and he confided in me long ago that he doesn't "believe any of that stuff they preach." He is an atheist, retired well known university professor, and enjoys the church for the people and the choir in which he participates. He is a staunch democrat, even puts candidate signs on his lawn and pro gay marriage. I have worked closely with other Mormons over the years and never found any of them to be unfair in their social views. Of course, same sex marriage never once came up back in the day.

CatTale: The fact that BYU college Democrats are debating this issue, and a BYU professor has co-edited a book that talks about difference of opinions on social issues, I think this is more widespread than I initially thought.

I've been into some Mormon blogs and forums, and it is apparent to me that there is a lot of dissent on quite a few issues. I was reading one about sex before marriage that was an extremely interesting and very mature discussion. Their concern was the same that I mentioned a while back, "how else can you tell if you are compatible?"

Widespread discussion of dissenting views you describe are what will be needed to turn around the negative image that Mormons seem to be creating for themselves. It's one thing to proscribe behavior of members of a religion, and quite another to attempt to force behavior on the public at large.

First, Romney with his incredible shape shifting on social issues, then outright lies, then Utah's apparent Mormon led intransigence and seemingly pointless roadblocks to gay marriage in the guise of "saving marriage" with Prop 8, and now their excruciatingly insensitive nullification of 1400 marriages of gay couples almost as an act of pure spite.

I cannot help but view this as religious bullying.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/utah-puts-recognition-of-gay-marriages-on-hold/

Utah will not recognize, at least for now, the marriages of gay couples who rushed to wed after a federal judge's ruling briefly rendered gay unions legal in the conservative, predominantly Mormon state, the governor's office said on Wednesday. The state's decision comes as a blow to roughly 1,400 same-sex couples who legally tied the knot after U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled on Dec. 20 that a state ban on gay marriage violated the U.S. Constitution. His ruling was later put on hold by the U.S. Supreme Court pending an appeal.

I had sworn off this "moderated thread" a while back, but I came back just to respond to and thank you for your attention to my questions.

 

[Pup]

Cat Tale, There are over Fifteen million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints none of whom dictate nor determine the doctrines, teachings and beliefs of the LDS Church to which you profess to belong... including Professors at BYU, which is a University not a Temple. Among so many there may be those who agree with you, and who are well along the pathway to apostacy. It is irrelevant. We know the tares and the wheat are growing together till the harvest and some have more understanding, knowledge, and worthiness than do others.

How do reconcile the way you interact with gay posters in this thread, and the advice at mormonsandgays.org--an official church website--to "respond sensitively and thoughtfully when [members] encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere."

It's clear that gay posters are upset with what you post, so you're receiving immediate feedback that they feel the tone of your responses is not sensitive to them. Cat Tale has held to church doctrine, that gay marriage should not be engaged in by church members and members should not have sex outside of marriage, yet has not caused the same level of offense, so it's not intrinsic to church doctrine.

Aren't such insensitive posts going directly against official church advice?

 

[halleyscomet]

Cat Tale, There are over Fifteen million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints none of whom dictate nor determine the doctrines, teachings and beliefs of the LDS Church to which you profess to belong... including Professors at BYU, which is a University not a Temple. Among so many there may be those who agree with you, and who are well along the pathway to apostacy. It is irrelevant. We know the tares and the wheat are growing together till the harvest and some have more understanding, knowledge, and worthiness than do others.

Column: Why Mormons flee their church

 

[Cat Tale]

There are over Fifteen million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints none of whom dictate nor determine the doctrines, teachings and beliefs of the LDS Church...

Based on the above, you entirely missed the point of my post. My point was simply that the Church is diverse on social and political opinions. We can both have different opinions as long as it doesn't contradict doctrine.

My feelings are simply that no one has shown why, or how, same-sex marriage will be harmful to me (a heterosexual), so why not allow those who wish to be commited to commit to one another? What business is it of mine, yours, or the Church's who marries whom, if they are not members of the Church? No LDS has even attempted to answer that, to the best of my knowledge, though it's been asked several times. I don't have an answer as to why we should require non-members to conform to any of our beliefs, do you?

including Professors at BYU, which is a University not a Temple

Absolutely, where did I ever say that BY University is a temple? It almost sounds like you're trying to belittle the University and its staff as inferior when it comes to knowing about diversity within the Church, simply because their observations differ from your own. The way I see it is a Professor at BYU sees far more LDS in an hour than either you or I see in a day. So to me, he's exactly the kind of person to have his finger on the pulse of the LDS students social and political views.

Among so many there may be those who agree with you, and who are well along the pathway to apostacy. It is irrelevant.

As I just said, I think that a major university where the predominant student is LDS is the perfect place to go to get statistics concerning the pulse of social issues in today's LDS Church. These teenagers and 20-somethings are the future of the Church. While BYU is not a temple, it is owned and operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It maintains a strict code of conduct for students, teachers and professors. While Common Ground-Different Opinions was not published by BYU press, it does have the name of the school attached to it since the co-author is a professor there. I would assume that if a professor comes out publicly and puts his name on a book that it would have to be within the code of conduct, and not on the "pathway to apostasy." Since he's still at the University I'm assuming that the Church doesn't consider him in any way unfit to teach future leaders of the Church.

So it's certainly not irrelevant to my case that there are LDS who don't march in lockstep with each other on political and/or social issues, who are not penalized for so doing.

The major complaint that I've seen about the book is that it is a series of essays, so there's no head-butting, it's not like the pro gay marriage person makes a comment and then the anti gay marriage person comes back and rebutts, that's the main complaint, also it was noted that a few of the essays actually may not promote harmony and unity the way the editors' wish, but for the most part the reviews have been very positive about the book and praise it for "demonstrating that a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive issues do in fact exist in the Church." That was from a blog book review at the Neal A Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship blog

This paragraph from the book sounds very similar to Mormonsandgays.org

Part of being a good member of a family, a ward, a church, a community, or a nation is talking civilly and lovingly about things over which we may disagree and explaining our reasons for what we think. One of the things we discover when we think carefully about issues is that thoughtful, good people sometimes come to different conclusions. Good members of the Church may differ on important political and social issues. But even when they disagree, they ought to be able to talk to one another about those disagreements and to explain themselves.

Even the Church is seeing the diversity and is really trying to make a change, else why set up a complex site specifically to address the issue of homosexuality? It says "what is changing -- and what needs to change -- is to help Church members respond sensitive and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere."

So my whole point has been this. There is diversity within the Church and as long as we obey the Commandments and love and respect others in our differences I don't see that we have anything to worry about.

 

[Cat Tale]

This is to add to the information I already posted in post #694

According to Mormon Newsroom, emphasis my own.

The Church Does:
Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.

The Church Does: "Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters..."

Under Relationships With Government it says: "Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent."

Wait! Elected officials, who are LDS, can differ from the Church and it's okay! These are people who can change the laws of the land, and the Church recognizes that they can make their own choices even if it's against a publicly stated Church position! Yet, according to Janadele [not the Church], somehow little old me here on the JREF forum, who merely says that based on my own research I don't see what's wrong with same-sex marriage, am on the path to apostasy! Nonsense.

 

[Travis]

Only sometimes, and probably not since 1950. I think the Pope upgraded his cell phone firmware and lost some of his contacts.

That is funny.

What I wonder is if the Pope were to repudiate and change doctrine that many find problematic like the ban on contraceptives, would people whine that it didn't come soon enough or be grateful it happened?

Because I get the impression many in this thread feel that because the LDS church changed its racial policy so late that it might as well have not done so at all.

And that is what I find so puzzling.

The fact that BYU college Democrats are debating this issue, and a BYU professor has co-edited a book that talks about difference of opinions on social issues, I think this is more widespread than I initially thought. The point is, I'm aware of other LDS and their mixture of beliefs and thoughts. I'm aware that it's okay to have my own thoughts and do my own research. Then again, I joined in a college ward.

Janadele you've been a member probably about 25 years (based on your posts). Have you never run into LDS who think differently than you? That's extremely hard for me to believe.

The reality is that in all my time in the LDS church I never encountered anyone that was homophobic. At worst some thought of it as a minor sin but no one, that I ever met, would think less of a person for it.

That the church chose to involve itself in a political matter regarding homosexuality still leaves me baffled. It was literally something that never came up and then all of sudden they are behind political initiatives regarding it. It's like finding out your old SCA group that you haven't worked with in a decade has subsequently turned into a Neo Nazi political party.

Baffling.....just baffling.

 

[bruto]

This is to add to the information I already posted in post #694

According to Mormon Newsroom, emphasis my own.

The Church Does:
Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.

The Church Does: "Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters..."

Under Relationships With Government it says: "Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent."

Wait! Elected officials, who are LDS, can differ from the Church and it's okay! These are people who can change the laws of the land, and the Church recognizes that they can make their own choices even if it's against a publicly stated Church position! Yet, according to Janadele [not the Church], somehow little old me here on the JREF forum, who merely says that based on my own research I don't see what's wrong with same-sex marriage, am on the path to apostasy! Nonsense.

I am very happy to see that statement so explicitly made. I think many churches and religious persons lose sight of what it actually means to be a representative.

Of course, a person who presumes such persons will some day answer to an angry and unforgiving god may well be correct, but it's good to know that they are speaking as individuals when they do so, and are mis-stating Church policy.

 

[Janadele]

The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has released a statement addressing the topic of same-sex marriage in the state of Utah, a portion of which is as follows:
"As we face this and other issues of our time, we encourage all to bear in mind our Heavenly Father’s purposes in creating the earth and providing for our mortal birth and experience here as His children. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:27–28). “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well-being of society. Strong families, guided by a loving mother and father, serve as the fundamental institution for nurturing children, instilling faith, and transmitting to future generations the moral strengths and values that are important to civilization and crucial to eternal salvation.

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife...
Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it. The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The Church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members. Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages." http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...gn=Feed:+LDSNewsRoomTop15+(RSS:+LDS+Newsroom)

 

[Janadele]

Statement of 10 January, 2014 reaffirmed as current LDS Doctrine:
“The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”
https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation

"WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

IN THE PREMORTAL REALM, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

WE DECLARE the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

HUSBAND AND WIFE have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

 

[halleyscomet]

The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has released a statement addressing the topic of same-sex marriage in the state of Utah, a portion of which is as follows:

...

The moderators have asked us to keep off the topic of gay marriage in this thread, especially as there are already two threads to discuss homosexuality and Mormons. I understand the way you're having your keister handed to you in the other thread where you spammed that edited quote must be frustrating for you, but we really should respect the moderators when it comes to what is and is not on topic in a thread.

Getting back on topic, a conservative Mormon friend of mine is writing a Bible study guide about Nephi's Bow and its meaning to assorted Mormon denominations. Could the Mormons and former Mormons in the thread please tell me how they interpret the symbolism in the story and it's relevance to the Mormon faith? Based upon exchanges with him it's clear the story is not the anachronistic embarrassment critics claim but a clever parable tying Nephi and his family to Biblical accounts of the patriarchs.