A sign of the times?

[Vort]

Normally, I take only an academic interest in the goings-on of other denominations. Since their "priesthood" has about as much authority as the Great Priesthood of Vort, I welcome them to bestow such "authority" on whoever or whatever they want.

But I admit that I am troubled, and more than a bit entertained, by the news that US Lutherans have voted to ordain practicing homosexuals as clergy. A few of the news story's more entertaining parts:

"This will cause an ever greater loss in members and finances. I can't believe the church I loved and served for 40 years can condone what God condemns," said the Rev. Richard Mahan, pastor at St. Timothy Lutheran Church in Charleston, W.Va. (The name is just too appropriate for the comment!)

ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson said after the vote he was committed to keeping opponents of the new policy within the ELCA fold.

"I'm pleading with people to stay in there with us in this conversation," Hanson said. ("Please oh please oh please oh please OH PLEASE STAY!! Otherwise we'll lose a significant revenue stream! But of course, we don't think enough of your age-old traditional beliefs to include it in our cafeteria-style, democratically-decided Mind of God beliefs.")

ELCA supporters of its change said failure to ratify it ran just as great a risk of alienating large portions of the membership, particularly those from younger generations. (Because, you see, this isn't about anything as naïve as knowing and conforming to God's will. The point is, people will leave! And they'll take their wallets with them!)

Tim Mumm, a gay man and an assembly delegate from Whitewater, Wis., said the Scripture that guides opponents of the more liberal policy was written by mortals, at a much earlier time, and doesn't reflect what many Christians now believe. "I believe for me to marry a woman would be wrong — even sinful," Mumm said. (Don't you just love Tim's amazing ability to decipher which parts of holy writ aren't really holy after all? You just have to listen to your head! Though he's not specifying which one...I'm quite tempted to agree with him about the sinful unholiness of him marrying a woman, though.)

[mlbrowninwa]

I have to say that it's not much of a shock to me. This is one big problem I had with some Protestant churches. I too wonder how they can condone something that is opposite of what is taught in the Bible. It seems more and more they are changing their beliefs to what is "correct" for today's times. And it's not just this subject either. It's sad to see, but that's just my opinion.

[sixpacktr]

The natural man is an enemy of God. We find, not only in other religions that are relaxing standards in order to keep people, but also some in our own that want things to be 'easier' for others to accept us. We need to understand that being right (in whatever situation, not just religious beliefs) is often harder than the easy way of accepting anything as 'okay'.

So while we see some of this within some of the other Christian sects, we need to be sure that our own beliefs do not take on a 'form of godliness, but deny the power thereof'.

[Dravin]

ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson said after the vote he was committed to keeping opponents of the new policy within the ELCA fold.

"I'm pleading with people to stay in there with us in this conversation," Hanson said.

We wouldn't want people breaking away over a disagreement over doctrine and adminstration, you can't just have different groups being formed because you can't reconcile differences. That'd be like the protestant movement and we can't have that.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Dravin

[Moksha]

As mentioned, the Episcopalians have also ordain a gay Priest. Metropolitan and Unitarian Churches too.

To make matters even worse, they have also ordained ***gasp*** Women!!!

[Maxel]

We wouldn't want people breaking away over a disagreement over doctrine and adminstration, you can't just have different groups being formed because you can't reconcile differences. That's be like the protestant movement and we can't have that.

I can taste the irony dripping from the post.

I've actually been thinking about how the LDS church has dealt with major changes in practice and policy (starting/ending polygamy, lifting the race ban on the priesthood, etc.) and wonder what the wording has been like. Has the emphasis been on members to stay with the Church as it deals with the changes, or has the emphasis been to seek the will and charity of Christ and follow the prophets? Or something else?

I think we'll be seeing a lot of fragmenting among the members of the LDS church within the next 20 years as the world gets more wicked and those with one foot in Zion and one foot in Babylon decide to plant both feet in the latter.

[Vort]

I've actually been thinking about how the LDS church has dealt with major changes in practice and policy (starting/ending polygamy, lifting the race ban on the priesthood, etc.) and wonder what the wording has been like. Has the emphasis been on members to stay with the Church as it deals with the changes, or has the emphasis been to seek the will and charity of Christ and follow the prophets? Or something else?

From my point of view, none of the above (or maybe "something else"). The attitude has been, "The Lord is moving his marvelous work forward by providing new revelatory insight to his prophets. Let us rejoice!"

Of course, not all have rejoiced. Many Saints left the kingdom of God during Joseph Smith's life, and some at his death. Many who had been faithful, in word at least, abandoned the Church when the Church abandoned polygamy, justifying their foolish choice by saying, "We didn't leave the Church -- the Church left us!" Again, others left the Church because of the 1978 revelation, either because their personal bigotry did not leave room to accept blacks in full fellowship or because they decided the revelation was too convenient, and therefore not revelation at all. In fact, almost every time the Church announces a policy change, some erstwhile Saint somewhere decides that the Church must not be true any more (if it ever was), that it's guided by a bunch of myopic old white guys who wouldn't know truth if it bit them in the behind, and that their time is better spent elsewhere.

Please don't be deceived into thinking that this is somehow a new phenomenon for the 21st century, or even for the Restoration. Whenever the kingdom of God, guided by prophets, has been on earth, there have been those who sought to honor the dead prophets by ignoring the living prophets. Same song, nth verse.

[prisonchaplain]

Often such headlines end up meaning only that some subcommittee received a study recommending such changes. However, this time, the report appears to be the real deal. Here's an article directly from the Church: ELCA Assembly Opens Ministry to Partnered Gay and Lesbian Lutherans - News Releases - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

[prisonchaplain]

I have to say that it's not much of a shock to me. This is one big problem I had with some Protestant churches. I too wonder how they can condone something that is opposite of what is taught in the Bible. It seems more and more they are changing their beliefs to what is "correct" for today's times. And it's not just this subject either. It's sad to see, but that's just my opinion.

If it's any consolation MOST Protestant churches have this same problem with "some Protestant churches."

[Traveler]

I have asked a question in the past – what is the sin or to what extend must mankind indulge in sin before G-d will intervene and cause destruction of the society that condones and harvests that sin? The Bible speaks of the flood of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of G-d intervening destruction. It is interesting to me that the ancient Book of Enoch high lights a most interesting thought. It claims that G-d destroyed all society at the time of the flood because “they changed the order of marriage”. The other sin specifically mentioned was in essence the sexual abuse of children - which it does not appear that we are approaching yet – with some exceptions in polygamous supported churches (many of which broke off or are apostate from the LDS).

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, you pose an interesting and vaild question. Within evangelicalism, many of those my age have been heavily influenced by such books as The Late Great Planet Earth. Later, there were the church films Thief in the Night, Mark of the Beast, etc. So, we tend to view such licentiousness as signs of the coming Rapture and return of Christ for judgment. Could it be that God will judge a particular society before such worldwide events? The answer would seem to be, "Of course!"

[Traveler]

Traveler, you pose an interesting and vaild question. Within evangelicalism, many of those my age have been heavily influenced by such books as The Late Great Planet Earth. Later, there were the church films Thief in the Night, Mark of the Beast, etc. So, we tend to view such licentiousness as signs of the coming Rapture and return of Christ for judgment. Could it be that God will judge a particular society before such worldwide events? The answer would seem to be, "Of course!"

Okay – now you have me wondering. In LDS thinking, the L-rd will “gather” his elect or saints. Isaiah and Ezekiel are prolific in prophesy concerning a gathering in the “last days”. I have some understanding that evangelicals reference the same idea in “the Rapture”. Rather than getting into differences in understanding – I think the basic idea is similar. That is that believers will be called out (like Lot from Sodom and Gomorrah or Noah to the Ark) to be saved from the destruction that is rained upon those that do not separate from the evil. I do think it is interesting that LDS believe that we must separate ourselves as did Lot and Noah.

Also interesting to me is the means by which the warning is given to the world and to those that would gather in that it seem that the wicked gather together symbolically (in common doctrine, concept and area) as well as the righteous gather symbolically (in common doctrine, concept and area). It is my understanding that in the last days the split will be between “Zion” or those that gather at the “mountain of the L-rd” and Babylon. Isaiah says the gathering place in the last days will be known or established as “The top of the mountains”. The ancient Native American (Ute peoples) word meaning the top of the mountains is “Utah”. Anyone that knows the history of the Mormons coming west know that the only way the state of Utah could have gotten that name for this meaning was by the hand of the L-rd.

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

When the four come together before GOD and sealed the heads of those who are called by the Godhead before turning on the rest of the world.

See http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/17353-angels-revealed.html

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, so LDs believe they will be gathered into a place of refuge on this Earth, during the time of troubles? How interesting! We believe that many Jews will be gathered in such a way, but that Christians will be snatched away, to be with the Lord, presumably in heaven, to enjoy a 7-year Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

[Traveler]

Traveler, so LDs believe they will be gathered into a place of refuge on this Earth, during the time of troubles? How interesting! We believe that many Jews will be gathered in such a way, but that Christians will be snatched away, to be with the Lord, presumably in heaven, to enjoy a 7-year Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

We believe that the gathering has already begun. We believe that the ancient scriptures give us a type and shadow in Joseph that was betrayed by his brothers and carried off among the Gentiles. Then when the "troubles" begin that refuge will not be with the traditional brothers but with the outcast Joseph that has become powerful among the gentiles. We believe that the charge to go to every nation, kindred, tongue and people was to gather those (sheep of the L-rd’s fold that were scattered by wolves – that came among the flock pretending to be sheep) that are scattered to every corner of the world.

We believe that according to prophesy that the final gathering will begin as a stone cut from the mountain in the “last days” when the Roman empire of Iron and clay will be divided into two great empires and then into 10 kingdoms that will all fall as the kingdom of G-d continues to gather and grow. You might want to research when the Roman Empire was divided into 10 kingdoms. It was not a very long time and fulfills a very important prophesy.

Finely, we believe that it shall be those sheep that have gathered in the manner of the 5 wise virgins that will be caught up in an instant to greet the L-rd when he returns in power and glory.

The Traveler

[Mason]

We believe that many Jews will be gathered in such a way, but that Christians will be snatched away, to be with the Lord, presumably in heaven, to enjoy a 7-year Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

"We"?

[Mason]

Normally, I take only an academic interest in the goings-on of other denominations. Since their "priesthood" has about as much authority as the Great Priesthood of Vort, I welcome them to bestow such "authority" on whoever or whatever they want.

The feeling is mutual I'm sure.

("Please oh please oh please oh please OH PLEASE STAY!! Otherwise we'll lose a significant revenue stream! )

Isn't that Gregory Dodge's department theme in Salt Lake?

(Don't you just love Tim's amazing ability to decipher which parts of holy writ aren't really holy after all?)

"We believe the Bible to the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...."

Yeah, that "problem" seems to be going around.

[Kenny]

I have asked a question in the past – what is the sin or to what extend must mankind indulge in sin before G-d will intervene and cause destruction of the society that condones and harvests that sin? The Bible speaks of the flood of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of G-d intervening destruction. It is interesting to me that the ancient Book of Enoch high lights a most interesting thought. It claims that G-d destroyed all society at the time of the flood because “they changed the order of marriage”. The other sin specifically mentioned was in essence the sexual abuse of children - which it does not appear that we are approaching yet – with some exceptions in polygamous supported churches (many of which broke off or are apostate from the LDS).

The Traveler

Everything bad that happens to man was because he moved far enough away from Father that His influence was no longer felt and every attempt to call them back fell on deaf ears.

Gods knows the beginning from the end He also knows each of us individually and our strengths and weaknesses and our political persuasion.

The Earth is a living thing able to be commanded through the priesthood. Like every living thing it needed to be born, grow, be baptized, die, be resurrected and glorified. The only real difference is the earth has no choice.

Adam was organised from the dust and water of Earth, Eve was taken from his side and together new life was able to come forth. Mankind has the ability to produce as many tabernacles as is needed what he does not have is the power to put the spirit in the body, that is God's domain.

So the souls that came to earth up to flood were thus assigned by an all seeing all knowing Deity.

Just like the souls that come forth now are those reserved for these latter days likewise those that preceded us came when the conditions were right for them.

Everything that has happened to man happened to set a president to teach and helps him grow.

None of this changes our free agency but if we can overcome our natural selves the blessing will be heavenly.

[Hemidakota]

Traveler, so LDs believe they will be gathered into a place of refuge on this Earth, during the time of troubles? How interesting! We believe that many Jews will be gathered in such a way, but that Christians will be snatched away, to be with the Lord, presumably in heaven, to enjoy a 7-year Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

I really don't know how familiar you are with the Moroni and his wanderings after the last battle at Cumorah but there is special location where he blessed but it was not for a temple only as stated by President Young or Joseph Smith [Zion]. It was a place a refuge for the church, along with a temporary headquarters. A place of protection until the Saints can move to Zion after the cleansing where anything less than a righteous person would not dare to enter. A place of protection until the Saints can move to Zion after the cleansing where anything less than a righteous person would not dare to enter.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

Quote from Fourth Nephi through Moroni: From Zion to Destruction by Charles D. Tate, Monte S. Nyman

[page 243]

Some members of the Church are aware that at the dedication of the site for the temple in Manti, Utah, the following incident took place:

At a conference held in Ephraim, Sanpete County, June 25th, 1875, nearly all the speakers expressed their feelings to have a temple built in Sanpete County, and gave their views as to what point and where to build it, and to show the union that existed, Elder Daniel H. Wells said "Manti," George Q. Cannon, Brigham Young, Jr., John Taylor, Orson Hyde, Erastus Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Lorenzo Young, and A.M. Musse said "Manti stone quarry." I have given the names in the order in which they spoke. At 4 p.m. that day President Brigham Young said: "The Temple should be build on Manti stone quarry." Early on the morning of April 25, 1877, President Brigham Young asked Brother Warren S. Snow to go with him to the Temple hill. Brother Snow says: "We two were alone: President Young took me to the spot where the Temple was to stand; we went to the southeast corner, and President Young said: "Here is the spot where the prophet Moroni stood and dedicated this piece of land for a Temple site, and that is the reason why the location is made here, and we can't move it from this spot; and if you and I are the only persons that come here at high noon today, we will dedicate this ground." (Whitney 436)

That Moroni dedicated the Manti Temple site is one of the few statements the Brethren have made connecting a Book of Mormon figure with a specific current place and action. This aids us in documenting one of Moroni's travels and priesthood assignments. Another reference happened when William McBride, patriarch from the Richfield Utah Stake, spoke at a prayer meeting in St. George in January 1881. After recalling many experiences from the Nauvoo period and quoting the Prophet Joseph Smith on many issues, Patriarch McBride referred to the Route the old Nephites took travelling to Cumorah from the south and south west; of having to bury their tr[e]asures as they journeyed and finally burying the Records and precious things in the Hill Cumorah; of Moroni dedicating the Temple site of what we now call St. George, Nauvoo, Jackson Co., Kirtland, and others we know not of as yet. (Walker 2:525-26)

[James_Fryman]

*facepalm* what is this world coming to

[Traveler]

........

"We believe the Bible to the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...."

Yeah, that "problem" seems to be going around.

Is there historical evidence that belief in the Bible has made historical Christians more compassionate? Can you provide even one (a single exception?) Bible believing Christian Society that passed a "Tolerance" law (prior to 1649) that prevented someone from loosing their life or property because they were not of the same Christian denomination (believe in the same "translation")? And how long was it after 1649 before historical Christians passed a law to protect non-Christians?

If there was a society that believed the Bible to be the word of G-d; the evidence of such a peoples seems to have been lost.

The Traveler

[Mason]

Is there historical evidence that belief in the Bible has made historical Christians more compassionate?

Are you just being crass, or was this written for dramatic effect?

That said, may I suggest you begin your studies with a nice history of the Saints, including the Religious movements of the middle ages going all the way back to the 2nd century AD.

Can you provide even one (a single exception?) Bible believing Christian Society that passed a "Tolerance" law (prior to 1649) that prevented someone from loosing their life or property because they were not of the same Christian denomination (believe in the same "translation")?

Are you really this ignorant of history?

The Edict of Milan, 313 AD, declared religious toleration in the Roman Empire.

And how long was it after 1649 before historical Christians passed a law to protect non-Christians?

I would venture to guess that the answer depends on a more specific question. Are you asking about a nation-state, or about a region or province? Is this law protecting non-Christians about Muslims, Gypsies, and historic pagans, or are you suggesting laws discussing the split between Eastern and Western Churches?

If there was a society that believed the Bible to be the word of G-d; the evidence of such a peoples seems to have been lost.

Your woeful ignorance on this subject is duly noted. Perhaps after you take a class or two on spirituality in the middle ages, you can re-approach this subject with some semblance of knowledge.

[Kenny]

Is there historical evidence that belief in the Bible has made historical Christians more compassionate? Can you provide even one (a single exception?) Bible believing Christian Society that passed a "Tolerance" law (prior to 1649) that prevented someone from loosing their life or property because they were not of the same Christian denomination (believe in the same "translation")? And how long was it after 1649 before historical Christians passed a law to protect non-Christians?

If there was a society that believed the Bible to be the word of G-d; the evidence of such a peoples seems to have been lost.

The Traveler

Anybody that puts their faith in the bible alone will fall short of its true message. Why do you think so much of the plain and precious things have been removed or altered. Some men want to complicate the word of God to elevate themselves above the unlearned and simple supposedly to bring them closer to God. Whereas the message contained within the bible is and should be plain and simple. One tries to change man from without with whatever the imagination can conjure up but the latter changes us from within.

When the work of God is completed then He will send His Son a second time but in power and glory to gather the righteous and destroy the wicked. This is what the bible foretells and the Book of Mormon gives second witness too. It all points to the latter days.

We can debate points of interest until the dawn finally sets for the last time but unless the discussion brings us to this understanding in preparation it is futile and does little more than put us in to the hands of Satan.

[Vort]

Normally, I take only an academic interest in the goings-on of other denominations. Since their "priesthood" has about as much authority as the Great Priesthood of Vort, I welcome them to bestow such "authority" on whoever or whatever they want.

The feeling is mutual I'm sure.

Well, duh.

Not to put too fine a point on it.

Actually, I wish the feeling were mutual. Then we wouldn't have those idiots whining about LDS endowments and other work for the dead.

("Please oh please oh please oh please OH PLEASE STAY!! Otherwise we'll lose a significant revenue stream! )

Isn't that Gregory Dodge's department theme in Salt Lake?

According to Google, Gregory Dodge is the supervisor of the LDS Church's membership records office.

Are you suggesting that the mere presence of names on a membership record somehow magically produces revenue in the LDS Church? Or are you merely trying hard to be clever in suggesting that the LDS Church keeps names on its records in the hopes of squeezing some tithing money out of them?

(Don't you just love Tim's amazing ability to decipher which parts of holy writ aren't really holy after all?)

"We believe the Bible to the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...."

Yeah, that "problem" seems to be going around.

So you are stating that Tim claims to be a prophet of God? In that case, I think you're not telling the truth. I think he claims no such authority; rather, he just likes to interpret scripture however best suits his sociopolitical whims.