Gays, blacks and the church

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Is "rarely" a key word here? Because we are limiting to 2 of how many dozens/hundreds of moral issues that prophets/scriptures have addressed. I have been reading Reeve's Religion of a Different Color, and it is interesting how the implementation of the priesthood/temple ban sure seems to fit a "We [meaning the 19th century Church leaders and/or members] are being told by 19th century American society that blacks and other races are definitely less civilized (or something) than white America, so give us a revelation that will segregate the Church/priesthood along racial lines." and then claim revelation to ratify that decision. It isn't that God can't or won't "sign off" on my bad idea (or a prophet's bad idea), but how do we know when we are twisting things to fit our own predispositions and when are we truly following God's will.

I have to doubt "never". My own experience suggests that God is willing to grant reliable revelation even when the question is about getting more sex. The harder question behind it is truly understanding God's will for our sexuality so we can understand when and how God would answer the "I want sex" question. I fear we have too much of St. Augustine and other Christian beliefs buried deep in our understanding of sexuality to have a good handle on that question.

The simplest key that I have found is that the Church makes no connection between sexuality (which is more than orientation) and marriage, only gender and marriage; that marriage is not dependent on the couple's sexuality , but their gender only. So, sexuality becomes an issue for married couples, or for individuals who in good faith will not pursue marriage (or stay in it) because of issues related to sexuality. The Lord will guide everyone who seeks His will.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

[1 ]Is "rarely" a key word here? Because we are limiting to 2 of how many dozens/hundreds of moral issues that prophets/scriptures have addressed. I have been reading Reeve's Religion of a Different Color, and it is interesting how the implementation of the priesthood/temple ban sure seems to fit a "We [meaning the 19th century Church leaders and/or members] are being told by 19th century American society that blacks and other races are definitely less civilized (or something) than white America, so give us a revelation that will segregate the Church/priesthood along racial lines." and then claim revelation to ratify that decision. It isn't that God can't or won't "sign off" on my bad idea (or a prophet's bad idea), but how do we know when we are twisting things to fit our own predispositions and when are we truly following God's will.

[2] I have to doubt "never". My own experience suggests that God is willing to grant reliable revelation even when the question is about getting more sex. The harder question behind it is truly understanding God's will for our sexuality so we can understand when and how God would answer the "I want sex" question. I fear we have too much of St. Augustine and other Christian beliefs buried deep in our understanding of sexuality to have a good handle on that question.

1.  Now, we should perhaps note that we've just made quite the transition in going from the priesthood ban as a general policy, to the varying ways in which the ban was later implemented and interpreted.  

Reeve's book is on my to-read list--haven't gotten there quite yet--but based on podcasts I've heard of him, the notion that Brigham Young as of 1846-1852 was looking for an excuse to "segregate the Church/priesthood along racial lines" is not one that Reeve holds to.  Reeve, IIRC, argues that Young's understanding of Joseph Smith's temple theology and the idea of eternal progeny made him see the Biblical narrative of Abel's murder and the subsequent "curse of Cain" in a new light; and Young came to understand a priesthood ban on the literal seed of Cain as a naturally and justly required outgrowth of that theology.  In other words, per Reeve's view as I have heard it expressed elsewhere, Young wasn't engaging in self-serving, results-oriented revelation seeking.  To the contrary, he seized upon an extant revelation and followed it to what he understood to be its logical end.  

But even without Reeve, we can narrow the timing of the ban to sometime between April 25, 1847 (at which time Young endorses the priesthood of William McCary, even though McCary is married to a white woman) to February 13, 1849 (at which time Young, in a council meeting, endorses priesthood ban based on Cain's murder of Abel and rejects Lorenzo Snow's proposal that "the key be turned" to Africa).  Now, maybe Reeve thinks he has found some source from 1847 to 1849 indicating that Young actually had some secret desire "to segregate the Church/priesthood along racial lines"--and if so, I hope you'll cite to it.  But in the absence of any such source, I think most of us are pretty safe in our understanding that Brigham Young and the rest of the Church didn't give a flying fig, in 1847-1849, about what they were being told by 19th century American society. 

I mean, my gosh--the Church embraces polygamy, and when America says "ick", Brigham Young persists with the practice even though it got Joseph Smith killed and the rest of the Church booted out of their city in the dead of winter, resulting in the deaths of hundreds and the survivors being compelled to go and start over again in a gosh-forsaken wasteland.   But, the Church embraces ordination of black men to the priesthood, America (hypothetically*) says "ick", and Young immediately throws some of "the best Elders" in the Church under the bus just to curry favor with roughneck Missourians, prophet-killing Illinoisans, and useless east-coast dandies?  

Mormon history buffs used to think Young was made of sterner stuff. 

*Out of curiosity, does Reeve provide any evidence that, from 1847-1849, a single American newspaper criticized the Mormons for having ordained black ministers?  

2.  You have a fair point that I could have been a shade more nuanced; though I daresay God cares much more about whether we have quality relationships than whether we're gettin' it on with the frequency that we think we deserve. 

But while warped views of human sexuality come from every direction, I think the driving force in modern notions of sexuality come less from St. Augustine and more from the decrepit corpse of Hugh Hefner.  

Edited January 25, 2022 by Just_A_Guy

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  Now, we've just made quite the transition in going from the priesthood ban as a general policy, to the varying ways in which the ban was later implemented and interpreted.  

Reeve's book is on my to-read list--haven't gotten there quite yet--but based on podcasts I've heard of him, the notion that Brigham Young as of 1846-1852 was looking for an excuse to segregate the Church/priesthood along racial lines" is not one that Reeve holds to.  Reeve, IIRC, argues that Young's understanding of Joseph Smith's temple theology and the idea of eternal progeny made him see the Biblical narrative of Abel's murder and the subsequent "curse of Cain" in a new light; and Young saw the priesthood ban as a required outgrowth of that theology.  In other words, per Reeve's view as I have heard it expressed elsewhere, Young wasn't engaging in self-serving, results-oriented revelation seeking.  To the contrary, he seized upon an extant revelation and followed it to what he understood to be its logical end.  

But even without Reeve, we can narrow the timing of the ban to sometime between April 25, 1847 (at which time Young endorses the priesthood of William McCary, even though McCary is married to a white woman) to February 13, 1849 (at which time Young, in a council meeting, endorses priesthood ban based on Cain's murder of Abel and rejects Lorenzo Snow's proposal that "the key be turned" to Africa).  Now, maybe Reeve has found some source from 1847 to 1849 indicating that Young actually had some secret desire "to segregate the Church/priesthood along racial lines"--and if so, I hope you'll cite to it.  But I think most of us understand that Brigham Young and the rest of the Church didn't give a flying fig, in 1847-1849, about what they were being told by 19th century American society. 

I mean, my gosh--the Church embraces polygamy, and when America says "ick", Brigham Young persists with the practice even though it got Joseph Smith killed and the rest of them booted out of their city in the dead of winter, resulting in the deaths of hundreds and the rest being compelled to go and start over again in a gosh-forsaken wasteland.   But, the Church embraces ordination of black men to the priesthood, America (hypothetically*) says "ick", and Young immediately throws some of "the best Elders" in the Church under the bus just to curry favor with roughneck Missourians, prophet-killing Illinoisans, and useless east-coast dandies?  

We used to think Young was made of sterner stuff. 

*Out of curiosity, does Reeve provide any evidence that, from 1847-1849, a single American newspaper criticized the Mormons for having ordained black ministers?  

2.  You have a fair point that I could have been a shade more nuanced; though I daresay God cares much more about whether we have quality relationships than whether we're gettin' it on with the frequency that we think we deserve. 

But while warped views of human sexuality come from every direction, I think the driving force in modern notions of sexuality come less from St. Augustine and more from the decrepit corpse of Hugh Hefner.  

The interesting difference, to me, is that American racism has not gotten any better for Black people (and others, but keeping the discussion to priesthood), but the Church instituted lasting change with regards to making the priesthood and temple blessings accessible to all worthy members (i.e., ordination of males, temple ordinances for all members).

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

that American racism has not gotten any better for Black people

It’s actually gotten much, much better. 70 years ago African Americans could not share a bathroom with white people. In some places, the races couldn't date, marry one another, or even hang out together. Thank God that’s all in the past. 
 

I’ll be the first to admit we still have work to do. But to say we’ve made no progress isn’t true. 

Edited January 25, 2022 by LDSGator

[Just_A_Guy]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The interesting difference, to me, is that American racism has not gotten any better for Black people (and others, but keeping the discussion to priesthood), but the Church instituted lasting change with regards to making the priesthood and temple blessings accessible to all worthy members (i.e., ordination of males, temple ordinances for all members).

I wonder whether it's really accurate to suggest that Americans are as racist in 2021 (or in 2008, when they elected Barack Obama) as they were in 1978. 

But, I happen to think that one of the reasons for the priesthood ban in 1847 was due to William McCary's efforts to raise up a branch of mostly-black Mormons in Cincinnati with himself at the head, which was kneecapped by the declarations of Parley Pratt and others that black men had no claim on the priesthood.  To my view, under the conditions extant in 1847, McCary's discrediting may well have prevented the rise of a movement of self-segregated and socially activist Mormons who rejected Apostolic authority--and as American (and indeed, global) social conditions evolved over the next century, the 1978 revelation may paradoxically have had the same effect.  

Edited January 25, 2022 by Just_A_Guy

[Grunt]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The interesting difference, to me, is that American racism has not gotten any better for Black people (and others, but keeping the discussion to priesthood), 

I have no idea how you can say this?  It is verifiably untrue.   Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you?

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I wonder whether it's really accurate to suggest that Americans are as racist in 2021 (or in 2008, when they elected Barack Obama) as they were in 1978. 

But, I happen to think that one of the reasons for the priesthood ban in 1847 was due to William McCary's efforts to raise up a branch of mostly-black Mormons in Cincinnati with himself at the head, which was kneecapped by the declarations of Parley Pratt and others that black men had no claim on the priesthood.  To my view, under the conditions extant in 1847, McCary's discrediting may well have prevented the rise of a movement of self-segregated and socially activist Mormons who rejected Apostolic authority--and as American (and indeed, global) social conditions evolved over the next century, the 1978 revelation may paradoxically have had the same effect.  

Yes, politics are a part of it (and politics are economics), and when I look at the news, Black racism seems just just as bad as ever. The only things that might change is the form of expression of Black racism, sophistication (or lack thereof, as in brute violence), etc. Arguments can be had for what's better / what's not for the USA. But OD2 changed everything for Blacks, systemically, for priesthood ordination forever. The rest of the treatment of Blacks in the Church (great in most places; poor in a few, I suppose), I think is more of a societal issue and not a doctrinal one, and society at large continues to fail in my opinion. The change in "law" in the Church made a big, permanent difference world-wide. The  change in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, did not put much of a dent in secular policy (economic/financial, political, educational outcomes, etc.). What the Church accomplished in a day hasn't been equaled in 60 years by the Civil Rights Act.

This also speaks, in my opinion, to the Brethren doing the right thing at the right time by the right authority, and not by the will of enlightened voices in society who still have not yet been paid listened to by anybody.
 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

It’s actually gotten much, much better. 70 years ago African Americans could not share a bathroom with white people. In some places, the races couldn't date, marry one another, or even hang out together. Thank God that’s all in the past. 
 

I’ll be the first to admit we still have work to do. But to say we’ve made no progress isn’t true. 

Arguments can had both ways: "progress" has been made and we "still have work to do" but when I read the news there are not a lot of happy campers, racist or not, on this issue, to the point of violence and national/political polarization. I do not think it is just a lot of "hot air." My point is, the Church was and is lightyears ahead, as demonstrated by seeking and implementing the revelation (OD2) so quickly and permanently.

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My point is, the Church was and is lightyears ahead, as demonstrated by seeking and implementing the revelation (OD2) so quickly and permanently.

Oh, okay. Thanks for the clarification. 

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I have no idea how you can say this?  It is verifiably untrue.   Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you?

It's an opinion, based on the news (things are not going well for Blacks -- maybe it's just their opinion but it's being made rather forcefully and polarizingly in many locales and on the national level), and to highlight the point that the Church implemented change in policy better (faster, more effectively and permanently) than our society has with regards to the treatment and outcomes for Black people.

[NeuroTypical]

If you listen to certain folks with agendas to push for various social or economic changes, and the politicians who wish to obtain their vote, you will hear how little things have changed for this or that group.  Or how things have gotten worse.  

If you listen to historians, certain folks who politically oppose that first group of folks, economists, people who understand statistics or how to do research, and people with a valid and deep interest in truth, you'll often hear a broader, more correct, more valid opinion about things.  Occasionally they'll agree with the first group, but they'll be able to demonstrate why they agree, in ways other than simple virtue signaling or outrage peddling.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

It's an opinion, based on the news (things are not going well for Blacks -- maybe it's just their opinion but it's being made rather forcefully and polarizingly in many locales and on the national level), and to highlight the point that the Church implemented change in policy better (faster, more effectively and permanently) than our society has with regards to the treatment and outcomes for Black people.

It may be worth noting that there’s a difference between how things are actually going for us, versus how WE THINK things are going for us.

[JohnsonJones]

9 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I don't think I have the wherewithal to argue this, but I will say that this could be one of my key "shelf" issues. If I boil it down to its essence:

Sure there's a public, signed document, but is it still possible that much of our beliefs on LGBT is, as with blacks and the priesthood, a hodge-podge of tradition and teachings mingled with some truth and revelation? In the absence of a "testimony" type experience, it seems awful difficult to disentangle tradition and apostolic opinion from Truth. Appeals to scripture sometimes work, but, scripture is also full of traditions and opinions, and it is often difficult to detangle truth from tradition in scripture.

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying?

Actually, if you BELIEVE in the Bible and the scriptures, it's not tradition at all. 

It's black and white written by the apostles of God in the Scriptures which is about as core to doctrine as you can get.

If you don't LIKE that it's written in the Bible (and I know there are some that try to ignore the context and format of how the verses that condemn this type of activity in the bible so that it's talking purely about prostitution instead of homosexual acts, but they are ignoring an AWFUL lot and by that type of reading all sorts of sins are also allowable such as bestiality, incest, and even murder) you probably are not having a key shelf with the Church, but with most of Christianity which still follows the Bible, especially the New Testament portion of it.

Are you saying that what is written in the Bible is merely opinion and only tradition (rather than the word of the Lord?)?

I suppose that's a way to look at the Scriptures.  If you look at it that Paul was only expressing his "opinion" rather than what the Lord wanted...I guess you could toss that out.  I suppose you could also say Jesus was only expressing his opinion (one of the more famous scriptures to discuss this is one oft ignored.  It is where the Lord talks about divorce.  Technically he was saying the only reason one could get a divorce for was for sexual sins...which...as he was well educated in Jewish Law at that point would have meant adultery, fornication, sodomy, and other sins considered as serious under Judaic law...meaning that homosexual acts were ALSO considered wrong in that regards.  We read it today as just meaning adultery, but technically, under Jewish law it was any sin  that involved someone other than a spouse of the opposite sex/gender that you did things of a certain type of act with).

Considering the idea that the Lord was only teaching his OPINION is a good way to invalidate the New Testament I suppose which leaves us with the Old Testament (and no christianity).  In that light, you could say that how the Jews interpreted the laws of marriage and adultery/fornication/sexual sin during the time Jesus walked the Earth and since is ONLY their opinion and traditions (which, if taking that view, could be correct seeing the variations in the legal interpretations of Jewish law occur within the different sects of the Jewish people), but it is an odd take for one who would be Christian.

One of the things many ignore when trying to ignore what Jesus or Paul said concerning Homosexuality is that the both were well versed in Judaic law to the point that they could effectively prove their point to the greatest Jewish Scholars of their time.  They taught in the CONTEXT of HOW the Law was understood in their day, which by default means that when they talk about homosexuality (or bestiality, or incest, or adultery) they were talking about it in the context of how it was interpreted (or the opinions and traditions I suppose you could say) among the Jews in their day.

If you take it that they were talking to Jews in the context that these things were understood in their time, there is NO OTHER way to understand that they were condemning homosexual acts.

NOW...that doesn't mean we should take a harsh stance against people in our modern day that in such a manner.  In fact, condemning them ourselves is something I rather do not like.  Instead we should treat them with love as they are our fellow brothers and sisters.  We should treat them with respect and charity.  Let them do as they want and let us do as we want. 

I was recently reflecting on the state of the United States and religion and was overwhelmingly grateful for the freedoms we currently have.  I can worship as I will without the fear of being put to death or imprisoned until I refuse my faith.  I don't have to worry about being fed to Lions or tigers or being burned at the stake.  I have the freedom to think and worship as I will.

I think loving others who have different dispositions than us is part of the commandments as well, so that we should first Love God, but next, love our neighbors as ourselves.  I think too often we focus on where we differ on ideas rather than how much we should actually love others who have a different belief or hope than we do.

In that light, I know it can sound harsh (what I wrote above), but in all honesty that isn't what I or we should be focusing on.  Instead, as the two great commandments say, we should be focusing on loving others and showing love and compassion to them rather then condemnation.  That applies to everyone of our neighbors and fellow children of the Lord.  Something I need to work harder on myself, rather than focusing on the negative...focus on what I can do to be a more positive light for others.

Edited January 26, 2022 by JohnsonJones

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It may be worth noting that there’s a difference between how things are actually going for us, versus how WE THINK things are going for us.

This would suggest that government's policies for Black race relations in America were/are implemented with better or as positive outcomes as the Church's implementation of priesthood ordination of Blacks. But, we do not see the turmoil and polarization over priesthood ordination in the Church that we do over race-related policies in politics. The way this plays out for same-sex marriage (or female ordination) is not that the Church will implement these policies better than society has (or at all), but that the Brethren exercise the keys to make the right decisions at the right time.

My observation is that actual vs. perceived doesn't make any difference in politics. At best, people are civil and compromise, and at worst they just band together to win at all costs. The same might be said of religious experience, that actual vs. perceived doesn't make any difference. The way this is resolved, in our faith at least, is that keeping the covenants is what matters, and agreement on what is deemed "actual" is acknowledged by saying "Amen" or raising our right hands to sustain a proposal.

I understand there might be some Church units where a Black person might complain of racial mistreatment or social ostracization, but this would be a reflection of the society around them, not the Church's successful priesthood ordination policy.

[The Folk Prophet]

19 hours ago, Grunt said:

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

The interesting difference, to me, is that American racism has not gotten any better for Black people (and others, but keeping the discussion to priesthood), 

I have no idea how you can say this?

It's the narrative that the leftist media has been pushing since Obama was elected. An awful lot of people just thoughtlessly accept it.

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It may be worth noting that there’s a difference between how things are actually going for us, versus how WE THINK things are going for us.

This ^^^^^^ is much more profound than most may think.  😉   There are debates somewhat unresolved as to what is more important - what is "real" or what is perceived.  I tend to believe that what we think has greater impact on us than what is real.   This seems to go along with something Jesus said along the lines of --  As a man thinks in their core (heart); so are they!  He did not say that as a person thinks so should we believe that they are.

I am personally amazed that there is so much misunderstanding in this time and age of understanding.  I think the great questions is - what does a person have to do to convince the world that they have lost touch with reality (that they are mental and require HELP)?  For example - what does a person have to do (get a tattoo?) to demonstrate that they are uncomfortable in their own skin?  

I believe that there are scriptures to indicate that a time would come when humanity would become so lost that in essence - light would be called darkness and darkness would be called light.  The question I think should be asked of the Saints of G-d is - what impact are they willing to accept for themselves base on the thinking of the world?

 

The Traveler

 

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Traveler

[MrShorty]

17 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Actually, if you BELIEVE in the Bible and the scriptures, it's not tradition at all. 

It's black and white written by the apostles of God in the Scriptures which is about as core to doctrine as you can get.

Maybe just being a hit pigeon, but I feel I must defend myself (as J. Reuben Clark did when Joseph Fielding Smith accused him of somehow not believing scripture) that I believe in scripture -- at least to the extent that it is true. Just because I disagree or doubt the validity of certain interpretations or individual scriptural declarations, I think it is a bit too far to accuse me of some kind of wholesale rejection of scripture.

17 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Are you saying that what is written in the Bible is merely opinion and only tradition (rather than the word of the Lord?)?

Not all of it, but I believe some of it is is merely opinion and tradition. I do not believe scripture is inerrant or that prophets are infallible. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit chose every single word in the scriptural canon (as one fundamentalist/Evangelical on the radio once claimed).I believe that scripture represents apostles' and prophets' and others' best attempts at explaining their spiritual journeys, and those explanations will include some things that are mere tradition and opinion. As it relates to the topic, I would say the difficult part is understanding how to distinguish between the traditions of men and the words of God in scripture.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's the narrative that the leftist media has been pushing since Obama was elected. An awful lot of people just thoughtlessly accept it.

I'm apolitical / nonpartisan as far as that goes, at least for the sake of a gospel discussion. Life's too short  .

But if the media (right, left, whatever, as far in any direction as anyone wants to take it) is pushing something to the point of the kind of political polarization we're seeing on the subject, that shows that there is still a problem of some kind or another, whether real or phony/manufactured, and the solution isn't to ignore it until it goes away (if you feel that strongly about it). You can't say the same thing about OD2.

My point is that the Church's implementation of OD2 is not so bungled: Blacks are ordained, period, and no one is complaining. My real overall point is that likewise, the Church is not bungling on its position on same-sex marriage and the ordination of women.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Maybe just being a hit pigeon, but I feel I must defend myself (as J. Reuben Clark did when Joseph Fielding Smith accused him of somehow not believing scripture) that I believe in scripture -- at least to the extent that it is true. Just because I disagree or doubt the validity of certain interpretations or individual scriptural declarations, I think it is a bit too far to accuse me of some kind of wholesale rejection of scripture.

Not all of it, but I believe some of it is is merely opinion and tradition. I do not believe scripture is inerrant or that prophets are infallible. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit chose every single word in the scriptural canon (as one fundamentalist/Evangelical on the radio once claimed).I believe that scripture represents apostles' and prophets' and others' best attempts at explaining their spiritual journeys, and those explanations will include some things that are mere tradition and opinion. As it relates to the topic, I would say the difficult part is understanding how to distinguish between the traditions of men and the words of God in scripture.

This raises a couple of questions for me: Is there any indication that temple marriage is an example of the Lord having patience with "the traditions of men" held by the majority of religious people across the globe who do not believe in same-sex marriage until they are ready to receive it? Is the wording of the Abrahamic covenant (and the attendant keys of Elijah) likewise an accommodation of "the traditions of men" until "seed" and "continuation of the seed/lives)" no longer requires two genders? Which false "traditions of the fathers" have been replaced so far by the truths of the restoration?

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

there is still a problem of some kind or another, 

Of that there is little doubt. 

(And I'd say the thoughtless buying into the narrative is a big part of that problem)

Edited January 26, 2022 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This raises a couple of questions for me: Is there any indication that temple marriage is an example of the Lord having patience with "the traditions of men" held by the majority of religious people across the globe who do not believe in same-sex marriage until they are ready to receive it? Is the wording of the Abrahamic covenant (and the attendant keys of Elijah) likewise an accommodation of "the traditions of men" until "seed" and "continuation of the seed/lives)" no longer requires two genders? Which false "traditions of the fathers" have been replaced so far by the truths of the restoration?

Why don't we marry off our six-year-old daughters? It's not politically or socially acceptable today, but that's just the whim of the mob. Maybe in 2040 it will be all the rage–laws will have been changed to accommodate six-year-old brides, and we'll have invented an entirely new vocabulary to describe the sexual experiences of and with a six-year-old girl. And it will be "a beautiful expression of humanity's sexuality." Apologists will doubtless point out comparisons in the animal world. The long history of child brides will be referenced and discussed interminably.

And, of course, many will view the Church narrowly and criticize our old-fashioned, short-sighted, bigoted treatment of the poor repressed six-year-old would-be brides among the Latter-day Saints and their long-suffering suitors who wait only to solemnize their holy union and consummate their love. Without doubt, there will be forward-looking Latter-day Saints complaining from within the flock about the Old White Guys who run the Church and how it really needs to get with the times.

If you stand with the homosexual movement now, will you stand with the six-year-old bride movement then? If not, why not?

This is not about the weirdness or repugnance of homosexuality, or for that matter of child brides. This is about standing for truth. Are we truly to believe that God would say, "Oh, you want child brides, do you? Well, you know, I guess there's really nothing wrong with that, so...sure! Why not?"

Which foundational doctrines can we depend on? Any? Or is it really just a free-for-all, with us "importuning" God until he gets behind whatever harebrained idea we've latched onto? "O Lord, we want to sacrifice our two-year-olds unto Thee because we think that might be pretty cool, and besides, all the other cults are doing it. Seems really progressive. So is it a go?"

We're talking about homosexuality here. Homosexuality. Yes, the practice has been known throughout human history, and even supported, both culturally and legally, in various societies. It has also been repelled and rejected in many others. But in exactly no society that I have ever heard of has the relationship between homosexual "lovers" been formalized as "marriage". Never, until the late 20th century West. Why is that? Why did the homosexual-loving Greeks, who actually built homosexuality into their very society and worldview, nevertheless reserve their term for marriage ONLY for heterosexual couples? Could it be the Greeks recognized the unique importance of the heterosexual couple and their coupling, and reserved both terminology and legal status for that couple because of their importance?

Our world is madness. Society is insane. Not only is homosexuality openly accepted, it is enthusiastically embraced and relentlessly portrayed—always, always, always in a positive light. And no one is allowed to disagree. Oh, you can believe what you want, though you will suffer severe social consequences for saying that homosexuality is a perversion. But try to get TV or radio time. Try to start up a well-written, smart TV show that portrays homosexuality negatively. Try to get any mainstream newspaper or other news source to agree with you and take your part.

Conspiracy? Perhaps not intentional. I don't know. But Satan has been conspiring for millennia, and this is certainly just the latest fruit from that corrupt tree.

I'm just stunned at the sight of Saints of God—good, thoughtful men and women who try to take their covenants to heart—taking up the position that homosexuality is not a bad thing, that the scriptures and prophets do not really teach against them, and that "we need a revelation" so that homosexuals can be sealed to each other in our holy temples (a position that literally does not even mean anything). How is this possible? How can we have fallen so far that some among us can actually hold forth these ideas?

The mind literally boggles.

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why don't we marry off our six-year-old daughters? It's not politically or socially acceptable today, but that's just the whim of the mob. Maybe in 2040 it will be all the rage–laws will have been changed to accommodate six-year-old brides, and we'll have invented an entirely new vocabulary to describe the sexual experiences of and with a six-year-old girl. And it will be "a beautiful expression of humanity's sexuality." Apologists will doubtless point out comparisons in the animal world. The long history of child brides will be referenced and discussed interminably.

And, of course, many will view the Church narrowly and criticize our old-fashioned, short-sighted, bigoted treatment of the poor repressed six-year-old would-be brides among the Latter-day Saints and their long-suffering suitors who wait only to solemnize their holy union and consummate their love. Without doubt, there will be forward-looking Latter-day Saints complaining from within the flock about the Old White Guys who run the Church and how it really needs to get with the times.

If you stand with the homosexual movement now, will you stand with the six-year-old bride movement then? If not, why not?

This is not about the weirdness or repugnance of homosexuality, or for that matter of child brides. This is about standing for truth. Are we truly to believe that God would say, "Oh, you want child brides, do you? Well, you know, I guess there's really nothing wrong with that, so...sure! Why not?"

Which foundational doctrines can we depend on? Any? Or is it really just a free-for-all, with us "importuning" God until he gets behind whatever harebrained idea we've latched onto? "O Lord, we want to sacrifice our two-year-olds unto Thee because we think that might be pretty cool, and besides, all the other cults are doing it. Seems really progressive. So is it a go?"

We're talking about homosexuality here. Homosexuality. Yes, the practice has been known throughout human history, and even supported, both culturally and legally, in various societies. It has also been repelled and rejected in many others. But in exactly no society that I have ever heard of has the relationship between homosexual "lovers" been formalized as "marriage". Never, until the late 20th century West. Why is that? Why did the homosexual-loving Greeks, who actually built homosexuality into their very society and worldview, nevertheless reserve their term for marriage ONLY for heterosexual couples? Could it be the Greeks recognized the unique importance of the heterosexual couple and their coupling, and reserved both terminology and legal status for that couple because of their importance?

Our world is madness. Society is insane. Not only is homosexuality openly accepted, it is enthusiastically embraced and relentlessly portrayed—always, always, always in a positive light. And no one is allowed to disagree. Oh, you can believe what you want, though you will suffer severe social consequences for saying that homosexuality is a perversion. But try to get TV or radio time. Try to start up a well-written, smart TV show that portrays homosexuality negatively. Try to get any mainstream newspaper or other news source to agree with you and take your part.

Conspiracy? Perhaps not intentional. I don't know. But Satan has been conspiring for millennia, and this is certainly just the latest fruit from that corrupt tree.

I'm just stunned at the sight of Saints of God—good, thoughtful men and women who try to take their covenants to heart—taking up the position that homosexuality is not a bad thing, that the scriptures and prophets do not really teach against them, and that "we need a revelation" so that homosexuals can be sealed to each other in our holy temples (a position that literally does not even mean anything). How is this possible? How can we have fallen so far that some among us can actually hold forth these ideas?

The mind literally boggles.

I hope this doesn't scare off @MrShorty -- I am asking those questions in the spirit of exploration.

I think my last question is the most productive: Which false "traditions of the fathers" have been replaced so far by the truths of the restoration? For example, the ordination of Blacks; that there is not only one "Bible"; that they keys of the priesthood are organized under a presidency (not a hierarchy of bishops with "documented" lines of authority to the original Twelve); that the Fall was not caused by an immoral act, but is part of a plan to live with God again. The mode of baptism by immersion and its connection with the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Testimony of the fundamentals is a crucial paradigm for evaluating these things: Jesus Christ is our Savior, the living Son of God; He restored His keys and Church through Joseph Smith; the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

I think it's OK for members to believe and understand things differently for one reason or another -- however strange those things may seem --- until they do and say things that create disunity and even end their membership. Those who know better (or think they do) are obligated to act in a way that draws people to Christ first. At some point, if we do things right as brothers and sisters, we will help each other align with Christ (Ephesians 4: 16).

I do think the Lord will teach the honest in heart (and no one is perfect), what they need to learn, either the hard way or the easy way. President Nelson said in his last conference message, "If most of the information you get comes from social or other media, your ability to hear the whisperings of the Spirit will be diminished. If you are not also seeking the Lord through daily prayer and gospel study, you leave yourself vulnerable to philosophies that may be intriguing but are not true. Even Saints who are otherwise faithful can be derailed by the steady beat of Babylon’s band." https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/10/59nelson?lang=eng

[Grunt]

On 1/26/2022 at 5:25 PM, Vort said:

Why don't we marry off our six-year-old daughters? It's not politically or socially acceptable today, but that's just the whim of the mob. Maybe in 2040 it will be all the rage–laws will have been changed to accommodate six-year-old brides, and we'll have invented an entirely new vocabulary to describe the sexual experiences of and with a six-year-old girl. And it will be "a beautiful expression of humanity's sexuality." Apologists will doubtless point out comparisons in the animal world. The long history of child brides will be referenced and discussed interminably.

And, of course, many will view the Church narrowly and criticize our old-fashioned, short-sighted, bigoted treatment of the poor repressed six-year-old would-be brides among the Latter-day Saints and their long-suffering suitors who wait only to solemnize their holy union and consummate their love. Without doubt, there will be forward-looking Latter-day Saints complaining from within the flock about the Old White Guys who run the Church and how it really needs to get with the times.

If you stand with the homosexual movement now, will you stand with the six-year-old bride movement then? If not, why not?

This is not about the weirdness or repugnance of homosexuality, or for that matter of child brides. This is about standing for truth. Are we truly to believe that God would say, "Oh, you want child brides, do you? Well, you know, I guess there's really nothing wrong with that, so...sure! Why not?"

Which foundational doctrines can we depend on? Any? Or is it really just a free-for-all, with us "importuning" God until he gets behind whatever harebrained idea we've latched onto? "O Lord, we want to sacrifice our two-year-olds unto Thee because we think that might be pretty cool, and besides, all the other cults are doing it. Seems really progressive. So is it a go?"

We're talking about homosexuality here. Homosexuality. Yes, the practice has been known throughout human history, and even supported, both culturally and legally, in various societies. It has also been repelled and rejected in many others. But in exactly no society that I have ever heard of has the relationship between homosexual "lovers" been formalized as "marriage". Never, until the late 20th century West. Why is that? Why did the homosexual-loving Greeks, who actually built homosexuality into their very society and worldview, nevertheless reserve their term for marriage ONLY for heterosexual couples? Could it be the Greeks recognized the unique importance of the heterosexual couple and their coupling, and reserved both terminology and legal status for that couple because of their importance?

Our world is madness. Society is insane. Not only is homosexuality openly accepted, it is enthusiastically embraced and relentlessly portrayed—always, always, always in a positive light. And no one is allowed to disagree. Oh, you can believe what you want, though you will suffer severe social consequences for saying that homosexuality is a perversion. But try to get TV or radio time. Try to start up a well-written, smart TV show that portrays homosexuality negatively. Try to get any mainstream newspaper or other news source to agree with you and take your part.

Conspiracy? Perhaps not intentional. I don't know. But Satan has been conspiring for millennia, and this is certainly just the latest fruit from that corrupt tree.

I'm just stunned at the sight of Saints of God—good, thoughtful men and women who try to take their covenants to heart—taking up the position that homosexuality is not a bad thing, that the scriptures and prophets do not really teach against them, and that "we need a revelation" so that homosexuals can be sealed to each other in our holy temples (a position that literally does not even mean anything). How is this possible? How can we have fallen so far that some among us can actually hold forth these ideas?

The mind literally boggles.

I appreciate your direct and faithful responses.  

[Anddenex]

On 1/25/2022 at 10:44 AM, MrShorty said:

It isn't that God can't or won't "sign off" on my bad idea (or a prophet's bad idea), but how do we know when we are twisting things to fit our own predispositions and when are we truly following God's will.

The scriptures already answer this question, and quite plainly (Moroni 7:16-26).

Whatever persuades the sons and daughters of God to do "evil" is not from Christ/God.

The other, if I am having to justify my thoughts, I know for myself I am not following God's will. I am indeed twisting things to make myself feel better, and to give a reason why I am doing something I shouldn't be or not doing something I should be.

The other, follow the brethren. The Oath and Covenant of the priesthood makes it clear regarding the feelings of the Lord toward his servants. If you accept my servants then you accept me (Jesus Christ), and if we accept Christ, we are thus accepted by the Father.

If in any way I am rejecting the prophets, the path the Church is moving, I can then know I am twisting things for mine own purpose. It comes down to a simple question, "Is Christ leading this Church (is he at the head or not)"?

For me, it is really this simple, plain, and clear.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Anddenex

[CV75]

On 1/25/2022 at 12:44 PM, MrShorty said:

Is "rarely" a key word here? Because we are limiting to 2 of how many dozens/hundreds of moral issues that prophets/scriptures have addressed. I have been reading Reeve's Religion of a Different Color, and it is interesting how the implementation of the priesthood/temple ban sure seems to fit a "We [meaning the 19th century Church leaders and/or members] are being told by 19th century American society that blacks and other races are definitely less civilized (or something) than white America, so give us a revelation that will segregate the Church/priesthood along racial lines." and then claim revelation to ratify that decision. It isn't that God can't or won't "sign off" on my bad idea (or a prophet's bad idea), but how do we know when we are twisting things to fit our own predispositions and when are we truly following God's will.

I have to doubt "never". My own experience suggests that God is willing to grant reliable revelation even when the question is about getting more sex. The harder question behind it is truly understanding God's will for our sexuality so we can understand when and how God would answer the "I want sex" question. I fear we have too much of St. Augustine and other Christian beliefs buried deep in our understanding of sexuality to have a good handle on that question.

RE: "how do we know when we are twisting things to fit our own predispositions and when are we truly following God's will"

I think these are two different things: twisting things is an intellectual, or "inward" exercise, and following God's will is an outward expression of our deeper commitments. For example, Adam in offering sacrifices and not knowing why (Moses 5:6).

One question is, how do we discern between our understanding and God's? This would be the application of Alma 32, and fuller understanding my take a long time. In Adam's case, it did take many days. The other question is, how do we discern that we are following God's will? We keep the commandments and covenants as revealed, no matter where we are on the Alma 32 faith-knowledge dynamic, which requires testimony and commitment. In Adam's case, he had a testimony (i.e., his eyes were opened) of his fallen condition and he better be obedient going forward.