Respect for Marriage Act


The Folk Prophet
 Share

Recommended Posts

So I've been watching all the conservative commentary on this and they're all mad and claiming that no one that calls themselves conservative should be voting for or supporting this act (a sentiment with which I agree), and so I decided to look at what the Church said on the matter:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-statement

An interesting contrast. I think and still fear what the conservative commentators are saying is true. This will be abused. Our religious rights will be (at some level) infringed upon. And conservatives should not be caving on this matter. It's merely another drop down the slippery slope we're obviously on. But I see where the church is coming from. It basically reads to me as, we lost this war, so compromise is the way forward. Fair enough.

I'll admit I've never understood the "heal relationships and foster understanding" type of language. Nor will the passage of such a bill do a thing, in my opinion, to heal any relationships or foster any type of understanding, other than the corrupting influence such things are inclined to have on society at large as to overall acceptance of things that were unthinkable a decade back. But I understand the church's wish to foster understanding, certainly, and to heal relationships as well. And so a statement of hope that such will be the case makes sense. And, to be fair, the statement isn't saying the passage of the bill will be key to healing relationships. It simply says much can be done as we work to compromise that can heal relationships. And that is, I suppose, theoretically true. Except I still can't say I, personally, believe it. What can be done to heal relationships that are broken because of core doctrine that cannot and will not change? The only way to 'heal' those relationships is to cave entirely. The compromises don't work. They're just another step towards complete obliteration, culturally and legally, of what we hold dear. So why do we compromise again and again? Well...we are doing our best. I understand. I'm not being critical of the effort. I just don't think it will actually work. But that isn't the point in doing what's right. Whether it works or not, we do what's right. Period. But I just don't think relationships, for the most part, over this and similar issues, are very salvageable. My cynicism is turned up to 11 when it comes to the woke mob, apparently.

Of course the church is concerned with the individual. So even if it mean a single relationship was partially salvaged, that would be worth any effort of compromise. That has to be weighed against damage done by the compromise. I'll admit I tend to fear that damage a lot and, hence, my above stated concerns. But I trust God leads the church and knows what's right in responding to these issues. And so I won't critique. I just admit I don't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The only way to 'heal' those relationships is to cave entirely. The compromises don't work. They're just another step towards complete obliteration, culturally and legally, of what we hold dear. So why do we compromise again and again? Well...we are doing our best. I understand. I'm not being critical of the effort. I just don't think it will actually work.

I don't believe it is compromise.  

https://fablesofaesop.com/the-tree-and-the-reed.html

We are not yet at full strength.  We are still gathering.  And those that have gathered, not all are faithful.

Who among us has experienced the power of godliness sufficient to sustain us in the last day?  How many instead would shrink in horror at the armies of Gog gathering around us?

The reason we don't stand tall is that we do not have large enough numbers with strong reeds and deep roots to withstand the wind.  And we know that the hurricane cannot last.  It is but a moment.

We have to be brought low before we can learn to depend on the Lord.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So I've been watching all the conservative commentary on this and they're all mad and claiming that no one that calls themselves conservative should be voting for or supporting this act (a sentiment with which I agree), and so I decided to look at what the Church said on the matter:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-statement

An interesting contrast. I think and still fear what the conservative commentators are saying is true. This will be abused. Our religious rights will be (at some level) infringed upon. And conservatives should not be caving on this matter. It's merely another drop down the slippery slope we're obviously on. But I see where the church is coming from. It basically reads to me as, we lost this war, so compromise is the way forward. Fair enough.

I'll admit I've never understood the "heal relationships and foster understanding" type of language. Nor will the passage of such a bill do a thing, in my opinion, to heal any relationships or foster any type of understanding, other than the corrupting influence such things are inclined to have on society at large as to overall acceptance of things that were unthinkable a decade back. But I understand the church's wish to foster understanding, certainly, and to heal relationships as well. And so a statement of hope that such will be the case makes sense. And, to be fair, the statement isn't saying the passage of the bill will be key to healing relationships. It simply says much can be done as we work to compromise that can heal relationships. And that is, I suppose, theoretically true. Except I still can't say I, personally, believe it. What can be done to heal relationships that are broken because of core doctrine that cannot and will not change? The only way to 'heal' those relationships is to cave entirely. The compromises don't work. They're just another step towards complete obliteration, culturally and legally, of what we hold dear. So why do we compromise again and again? Well...we are doing our best. I understand. I'm not being critical of the effort. I just don't think it will actually work. But that isn't the point in doing what's right. Whether it works or not, we do what's right. Period. But I just don't think relationships, for the most part, over this and similar issues, are very salvageable. My cynicism is turned up to 11 when it comes to the woke mob, apparently.

Of course the church is concerned with the individual. So even if it mean a single relationship was partially salvaged, that would be worth any effort of compromise. That has to be weighed against damage done by the compromise. I'll admit I tend to fear that damage a lot and, hence, my above stated concerns. But I trust God leads the church and knows what's right in responding to these issues. And so I won't critique. I just admit I don't understand.

My wife and my sixteen-year-old each asked me about this. I put a bit of a happy face on things, but fundamentally I believe like you stated. I don't really understand it. I do trust my Savior, and I do trust those he has called to lead his kingdom. If the above Church statement is a misstep, which it may be, I trust that it is not fatal and that it will not prevent justice from eventually prevailing. But like a portion of all Saints throughout history, I want to divide the world into black and white, right and wrong, and then cling to the right. If I don't, then I'm to blame, not God. But when precepts are taught as fundamental truths and then, later, those same supposedly fundamental truths are called into question by the same authorities (at least the same positions, e.g. First Presidency) that originally taught them. that's not a confidence builder.

In pre-radio days, which is to say, throughout the entirety of human history until maybe 100 or so years ago, battlefield communication was done using a loud, piercing instrument that provided a signal in the form of an easily recognized tune. Thus in the heat and confusion of battle, the troops could be told to assemble, charge, retreat, mount cavalry, etc. An example of such a battle instrument is the bagpipe, as in the lyric from Danny Boy where troops are being mustered: "Oh Danny Boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling / From glen to glen, and down the mountainside...It's you, it's you must go and I must bide." To us, a more familiar example will be a bugle, whose piercing calls are taught even today to Boy Scouts and Army recruits. The ancient Hebrews must have used a brass instrument like a bugle for such battle calls. The apostle Paul asks in 1 Corinthians 14:8, "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" Sometimes it seems the trumpet is giving an uncertain sound or a mixed signal. Do we charge? Do we muster or actively arm? Do we hold the line? Do we retreat? Is it simply too unbelievable childish and naive to ask for plain speech for the signal, rather than trying to feel our way and interpret the lead based on current circumstances and how the mob is feeling this week?

I am not spoiling for a fight. At the same time, I do not care to back down or cower from the self-proclaimed enemy. I have been taught since birth that I have certain rights, and as a free man I intend to exercise those rights. If the Lord or his kingdom would have me do otherwise, I will comply, but I must be able to understand the direction. At the present moment, it looks like maybe I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is simply a pragmatic move by the Church. This bill really doesn't change the reality of the situation in the US but if it helps solidify religious freedom, even if only for the short-term, then you swallow the bitter pill and keep  moving forward with your main purpose of saving souls. 

Satan will win some of the battles in this world but we can't allow that to distract us from the overall "war" between light and dark. And if we can agree to a truce that does some good when darkness was going to win the battle anyway, well all the better. 

But at the same time I'm glad that there are those who are opposed to this bill. It makes me wonder if it might be possible for there to be instances where the Lord would have us fight against something individually while supporting the same thing collectively. It's a new thought that I need to mull over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Vort said:

But when precepts are taught as fundamental truths and then, later, those same supposedly fundamental truths are called into question by the same authorities (at least the same positions, e.g. First Presidency) that originally taught them. that's not a confidence builder.

I don't see what position they've changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had half-wondered since 2008 whether the church’s political involvement on the issue was less about making a difference socially/politically and more about making our stance crystal clear.  Amish folks don’t have to register for the draft, because their faith’s stance on non-violence is well-known.  Maybe in time we will need a similar accommodation, both individually and for the church as an institution.   There are a lot of folks out there greedily rubbing their hands together and fantasizing about what they could do with the Church’s (formerly) $100+ billion war chest if only the Church’s tax-exempt status could be revoked . . .
 

That said, the proggies generally and LGBTQ advocates in particular have a very long tradition of promising us that they would never do something—and then doing it anyways.  (The “law of merited impossibility”, as I believe Rod Dreher has called it.)  Like Vort, I am fundamentally left only with the faith that the Church’s leaders are being divinely guided and that the Lord (if not the leaders themselves) know what they’re doing.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I don't believe it is compromise.  

https://fablesofaesop.com/the-tree-and-the-reed.html

We are not yet at full strength.  We are still gathering.  And those that have gathered, not all are faithful.

Who among us has experienced the power of godliness sufficient to sustain us in the last day?  How many instead would shrink in horror at the armies of Gog gathering around us?

The reason we don't stand tall is that we do not have large enough numbers with strong reeds and deep roots to withstand the wind.  And we know that the hurricane cannot last.  It is but a moment.

We have to be brought low before we can learn to depend on the Lord.

Maybe you and I understand the idea of what it is to compromise differently. I'd say bending with the wind to not be uprooted is, indeed, the very nature of compromise.

Edit: Moreover, the commentary "to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals" is clearly a statement of compromise.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the Church allow gay marriages in their buildings?  No.  Does the Church allow gay sealings?  No.  Does the Church ask for respect for all?  Yes.

 

I think @The Folk Prophet has it right, this is bending with the wind so as not to be uprooted.  Doctrine has not changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mirkwood said:

Does the Church allow gay marriages in their buildings?  No.  Does the Church allow gay sealings?  No.  Does the Church ask for respect for all?  Yes.

 

I think @The Folk Prophet has it right, this is bending with the wind so as not to be uprooted.  Doctrine has not changed.

That was @Carborendum. I'm not sure I quite see it that way. I'm still thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am torn on the issue. 

While I initially supported those who wanted to allow "Gay Marriage" I did not expect them to be so aggressive at attacking our morality or our children, and in doing so they have slowly turned me to be opposed to such sentiments.

FAR before they brought abortion to the Supreme Court, I would have felt those who truly were on the Lord's side would have tackled the issue of Gay Marriage in the nation in regards to how far and how much it should be enabled in relation or comparison to what they now call "Traditional Marriage" in the public consumption.

The fact that BOTH parties now seem to be in support of such things and we have widespread acceptance just shows how far the abomination spoken of in the New Testament and the rest of the Bible has gained ground among our World today.

It is interesting that we are as the Nephites and the Lamanites, for as in the Book of Mormon, as the Nephites grew more wicked the Lamanites grew righteous in comparison.

In many nations which we have conquered or opposed in the past in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East where they are not Christian but of other religions, their laws regarding morality have become more moral while ours have become less moral.

While I am happy to promote freedom for all, I am less happy to hand weapons which others will use to try to attack the morality and morals of my grandchildren and eventually great grandchildren and beyond. 

Thus, I am torn on the issue.  If the Church supports such a bill though, far from it for me to disagree.  Instead, it is better for me to stay silent on my actual thoughts (which would be a much longer post...if you know me) regarding the Bill itself and say I support the Church's statement from here on out and hope that such actions will help mend fences and relationships among us and our brothers and sister. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

If the Church supports such a bill though

It really doesn't strike me the church "supports" it. It really struck me more as, "Hey, the writing's on the wall...they're going to pass this thing. But we're grateful religious freedom has been carved out into it. Let's do our best to all get along."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me while I put my foot in my mouth, but this sounds kinda like a bunch of old women discussing the pros and cons of stewed tomatoes. Stewed tomatoes are what they are (very good in soup)... the church is what it is (the true church of Christ), and every person on Earth is a child of God (and has their own agency). The Church, by making this statement, has changed nothing. The doctrine is still the doctrine, the leaders are still inspired by God and if that is in question, seek your own inspiration, and then remember we can all repent... and all of this by the guy with the beam in his eye.

I'd be more concerned about a hang-nail.

PS. My deepest apologies to any elderly women on this site who enjoy discussing stewed tomatoes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2022 at 7:59 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

So I've been watching all the conservative commentary on this and they're all mad and claiming that no one that calls themselves conservative should be voting for or supporting this act (a sentiment with which I agree), and so I decided to look at what the Church said on the matter:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-statement

An interesting contrast. I think and still fear what the conservative commentators are saying is true. This will be abused. Our religious rights will be (at some level) infringed upon. And conservatives should not be caving on this matter. It's merely another drop down the slippery slope we're obviously on. But I see where the church is coming from. It basically reads to me as, we lost this war, so compromise is the way forward. Fair enough.

I'll admit I've never understood the "heal relationships and foster understanding" type of language. Nor will the passage of such a bill do a thing, in my opinion, to heal any relationships or foster any type of understanding, other than the corrupting influence such things are inclined to have on society at large as to overall acceptance of things that were unthinkable a decade back. But I understand the church's wish to foster understanding, certainly, and to heal relationships as well. And so a statement of hope that such will be the case makes sense. And, to be fair, the statement isn't saying the passage of the bill will be key to healing relationships. It simply says much can be done as we work to compromise that can heal relationships. And that is, I suppose, theoretically true. Except I still can't say I, personally, believe it. What can be done to heal relationships that are broken because of core doctrine that cannot and will not change? The only way to 'heal' those relationships is to cave entirely. The compromises don't work. They're just another step towards complete obliteration, culturally and legally, of what we hold dear. So why do we compromise again and again? Well...we are doing our best. I understand. I'm not being critical of the effort. I just don't think it will actually work. But that isn't the point in doing what's right. Whether it works or not, we do what's right. Period. But I just don't think relationships, for the most part, over this and similar issues, are very salvageable. My cynicism is turned up to 11 when it comes to the woke mob, apparently.

Of course the church is concerned with the individual. So even if it mean a single relationship was partially salvaged, that would be worth any effort of compromise. That has to be weighed against damage done by the compromise. I'll admit I tend to fear that damage a lot and, hence, my above stated concerns. But I trust God leads the church and knows what's right in responding to these issues. And so I won't critique. I just admit I don't understand.

My take on "heal relationships and foster understanding" refers to things the Church is doing that shows we have equal regard for all God's children (e.g., equal protection under the law as it stands today) and higher regard for God and His covenants, including marriage as we practice it. We can support some things that protect people who are LGBTQ -- the same protections all God's children should have (commerce, housing, employment, etc. as in the Utah Compromise) -- and have a religion to support which all God's children have a right to agree with (or not), but in any case, protect as much a fundamental right as the other things (commerce, housing, employment, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it this way:

In 2008 the tide was turning towards gay marriage but had not gone all the way in that direction just yet.  It was kind of a "head-them-off at the pass" moment.  Now in 2022 it is pretty much common to see gay marriage legalized (or in the process of becoming legalized) not only in the Western nations but also in many Latin American nations too.  Increasingly, voices that are against the gay community have found themselves ostracized in social media and even from several countries.  Franklin Graham is unable to go to the UK to preach at the moment (not that the UK banned him [but this is currently being discussed], but the venues won't let him preach anywhere in the country).  This is not limited to Christianity in general; several Islamic scholars have likewise been banned and their broadcasts forbidden, some legitimately, others not.

There is already a move in several banks going on that is going to penalize people for holding these kinds of opinions.  Imagine if the Church leaders talked about homosexuality the way Presidents Kimball and Benson did back in the 60s through the 80s.  The Church would find itself severely hampered.  I've seen a lot of reactionary voices (I wouldn't call them conservative) on some other forums out there that said that the Church is appeasing or capitulating.   Such is not the case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, laronius said:

I think this is a really good article on this subject. 

https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/art-skewing-church-statements/

It was a good article...except.... I can't agree with the final paragraph. Basically: If you don't draw the same conclusions as us you need to dig deep to get in line with the prophet. Uh....okay. You had me with you, publicsquaremag, until that arrogant nonsense.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It was a good article...except.... I can't agree with the final paragraph. Basically: If you don't draw the same conclusions as us you need to dig deep to get in line with the prophet. Uh....okay. You had me with you, publicsquaremag, until that arrogant nonsense.

I don't see anything but a simple statement about following the prophet even when you don't see the wisdom in the direction they are heading. That's more than just a drawn conclusion, that's doctrine. Methinks you had a biased opinion going in. No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2022 at 10:02 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

Maybe you and I understand the idea of what it is to compromise differently. I'd say bending with the wind to not be uprooted is, indeed, the very nature of compromise.

I see it as the Samuel Principle.  The Lord has mad His position very clear with previous political actions.  But we live in a republic, not a theocracy.  And the people have their agency.  And they've chosen to go against the will of the Lord.  So, what does a prophet do?  He preaches repentance.  And when they stop listening...

Quote

16 And I did endeavor to preach unto this people, but my mouth was shut, and I was forbidden that I should preach unto them; for behold they had wilfully rebelled against their God; and the beloved disciples were taken away out of the land, because of their iniquity.

17 But I did remain among them, but I was forbidden to preach unto them, because of the hardness of their hearts; and because of the hardness of their hearts the land was cursed for their sake.

It is a sign of the times that the Lord is telling the prophets to stop preaching what they have preached before.  Not contradicting what was said already.  Stopping.

On 11/17/2022 at 10:02 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

Edit: Moreover, the commentary "to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals" is clearly a statement of compromise.

Nope. We've always had a clear position that LGBTQ individuals have basic human rights and civil rights as outlined in the Constitution.  Such a statement may have been a reminder to both those in and out of the Church that this has always been the position of the Church.  In fact, Utah (with input from Church Leaders) led the path forward to legislation that clearly outlined what rights everyone ought to have regardless of sexual orientation.  It was largely ignored by the public.  But it was a pretty clear position.  And they've just reiterated that SAME position they've had since the defeat of Prop 22.

I believe part of the hoopla that this announcement generated is that people don't understand how to separate religion from politics.

While it would be ideal for politics to mimic religious virtue, it just doesn't happen that way.  So, we need to delineate clear lines where we say THIS religious principle NEEDS to be codified (e.g. murder, theft...). THIS one would be great if... (e.g. sanctity of traditional marriage).

But in either case the voice of the people will rule in politics.  Not so in religion.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I see it as the Samuel Principle.  The Lord has mad His position very clear with previous political actions.  But we live in a republic, not a theocracy.  And the people have their agency.  And they've chosen to go against the will of the Lord.  So, what does a prophet do?  He preaches repentance.  And when they stop listening...

God didn't give us a king because we clamored for one. The church isn't suddenly pro-gay marriage. (Despite what's being reported by some.) And we, the church members at large, have not stopped listening to the prophet and his counsel. Wouldn't the "Samuel principle" be something more like if the prophet asked the church members to campaign against gay marriage and we all said, "No...we want gay marriage legal!" and then he said, "Fine. Have it your way."?

21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It is a sign of the times that the Lord is telling the prophets to stop preaching what they have preached before.  Not contradicting what was said already.  Stopping.

I guess I don't follow. What, exactly, have the prophets stopped preaching that they used to preach? I'll grant, they talk less openly or bluntly about certain things in public meetings. But the teachings haven't necessarily changed have they? I mean certain ideologies (that weren't really doctrine) are viewed somewhat differently now...but that's not uncommon.

30 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

We've always had a clear position that LGBTQ individuals have basic human rights and civil rights as outlined in the Constitution.

I guess you think everyone has the same opinion on what constitutes a basic human right.

41 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Such a statement may have been a reminder to both those in and out of the Church that this has always been the position of the Church.

Compromise has also been the position of the church. I quote from the church news article where they signed an Amicus Brief on the matter years back:

The state of Utah, with Church endorsement, recently passed two bills that simultaneously protect religious freedom and ban discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the areas of housing and employment. “Fairness for all was the call around which all parties rallied. This compromise demonstrated that opposing viewpoints can come together to achieve agreeable ends..."

And form a related news release:

The effect of the 2015 Utah legislative action is a compromise in the truest sense. The Church has not altered its doctrinal position on homosexual behavior or what constitutes chastity. It has not changed its position on same-sex marriage, and all faiths now have additional protections for their fundamental right to freedom of religious belief and expression. On the LGBT rights side, a gay or transgender person in Utah can no longer be arbitrarily fired from a job or evicted from an apartment based simply on sexual orientation or gender identity.

What the church has done, the positions they've taken, and the compromises they have made and are making has been clearly stated and is not hard to understand. There are other quotes I could post, but I didn't feel like quote bombing was going to make my point any better than what I've shared here.

You're more than free to see the church's latest statement as somehow different and not speaking of the same compromise in this case. To me, however, it's clear what the church is doing and believes. It is compromise...in the truest sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, laronius said:

Methinks you had a biased opinion going in. No?

If you think my bias leans that direction you don't know me very well. Which, fair enough, you don't know me very well.

7 hours ago, laronius said:

I don't see anything but a simple statement about following the prophet even when you don't see the wisdom in the direction they are heading.

That is not what it said. I quote:

For other Latter-day Saints who consider this bill “anemic” and who don’t see this as a reasonable compromise, their solemn support for this “path forward” will involve digging deep and reconnecting with the wisdom in following a prophet’s lead.

If I find the bill anemic or think it isn't strong enough in carving out religious freedom exceptions I'm not following the prophet? There's a serious disconnect of logic there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My FIL says he heard on Ted Cruz’s podcast that Cruz is accusing Mitt Romney of having talked an individual LDS church leader into going rogue and making the announcement on behalf of the entire church without authorization.  Can anyone confirm if Cruz is actually saying this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

God didn't give us a king because we clamored for one. The church isn't suddenly pro-gay marriage. (Despite what's being reported by some.) And we, the church members at large, have not stopped listening to the prophet and his counsel. Wouldn't the "Samuel principle" be something more like if the prophet asked the church members to campaign against gay marriage and we all said, "No...we want gay marriage legal!" and then he said, "Fine. Have it your way."?

Yeah... Miscommunication. We seem to have very different definitions for words.

I use "The Samuel Principle" in a more broad application than what you seem to have defined for yourself.  Yes, the clamoring for a king was the issue with Samuel.  But the more generic application of the principle is

A) The Lord has stated what He wants and what his position is: Usually through his prophets.
B) Even after hearing that, the people decide to do something else.
C) The Lord recognizes that man has his agency, and while not changing his position on what is good, better, best, right, wrong, or indifferent, He acknowledges that the path that man has chosen to take is not the one he commanded/counseled.
D) It is bad enough that His Spirit will not strive with man.  But it is not so bad that He's ready to bring down the fire and brimstone... yet.

A modern version (and I believe Elder Renlund agrees with me) is when Joseph asked about the 116 pages for Martin Harris.  He said no twice.  We don't know what the exact wording was.  That was apparently between Joseph and the Lord.  But eventually, Joseph got this idea that the Lord approved.  Not quite.

Elder Renlund says:

Quote

(The third) time God did not say no. Instead, it was as though God said, “Joseph, you know how I feel about this, but you have your agency to choose.” Feeling himself relieved of the constraint, Joseph decided to allow Martin to take 116 manuscript pages and show them to a few family members. The translated pages were lost and never recovered. The Lord severely rebuked Joseph.

 The Lord never changed his position.  But He really didn't see a purpose in saying no again since at this point, A) He realized that Joseph would eventually try to rationalize it himself OR B)He knew that this was an excellent opportunity to give Joseph an object lesson in not questioning the Lord's wisdom.  Of course, it wasn't a "spur of the moment" decision.  He'd planned this for over 2000 years.  He wasn't surprised.

But Joseph learned this lesson.  And he was better for it.

7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I guess I don't follow. What, exactly, have the prophets stopped preaching that they used to preach? I'll grant, they talk less openly or bluntly about certain things in public meetings. But the teachings haven't necessarily changed have they? I mean certain ideologies (that weren't really doctrine) are viewed somewhat differently now...but that's not uncommon.

I need to say this carefully.  I'm really trying to interpret what you just wrote here.  I have no idea what you're trying to say I said.  I apologize if I'm just being stupid here.  But I really don't understand what this is.

I gave an example in the previous post above about what I was saying.  What happened to Mormon?  Why was his mouth shut?  I was not talking about the majority of the membership of the Church.  I was talking about the majority of this nation's population.

I'll give another example.  In 2000 Pres Hinckley gave this address where he spoke of the 7 yrs of feast & 7 yrs of famine.  He warned us to store up and save up.  A little while later, a Church video was shared with ward and stake preparedness specialists.  Elder Packer asked for everyone involved to continue to constrain all in their wards and stakes to be prepared for hard times.  But as prophets and apostles, they would no longer bring up preparedness in General Conference because (Elder Packer then quoted Pres. Hinckley) "We've been giving sermons on this for over 20 years.  Now it's time for the Lord to preach His sermon."  It took another 7 years for it to come to fruition.

Likewise, for about 20 to 30 years, the prophets have given their sermons.  It has been almost 30 years since the Proclamation was issued.  Now it's time for the Lord to preach His sermon.  I wonder if this statement they put forth is a similar message.  "We've preached our sermons. We've tried to work with government on a civic level.  Now the Lord will preach His sermon."  Only this time, it isn't only telling the membership of the church what the doctrine is (they've already made that clear).  It is now about telling the world what our position is.  They already know.  The prophets have spoken.  Their garments are clean of the blood and sins of this generation.  Now let them wallow in the filth they have chosen, and we'll see what happens.

The Church will always be here as a beacon of hope for those who still choose the Lord.  But when the wicked refuse to accept the truth, the Lord will sometimes tell the prophets to stop preaching to the gentiles... for the same reason he told Mormon to stop preaching to the Nephites.

7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I guess you think everyone has the same opinion on what constitutes a basic human right.

I don't.  But I believe the official statement from the Church might indicate a certain expectation (hope?) that certain PTB will have a reasonable range in which to work.  I don't know.  I can't speak for the Lord, nor his prophets.  But what I DON'T see is a change in the position that the Lord has taken on gay marriage or that we draw the line on Temple marriage for same-sex couples.

Part of this disconnect is that I can clearly see when the Church is making a political move (albeit with a longer term positioning for religious rights) vs when they are doing something from a purely religious position.  I know many will simply refuse to accept that ANYTHING the Church says or does in an official capacity is anything BUT 100% religious.  I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

My FIL says he heard on Ted Cruz’s podcast that Cruz is accusing Mitt Romney of having talked an individual LDS church leader into going rogue and making the announcement on behalf of the entire church without authorization.  Can anyone confirm if Cruz is actually saying this?

Yes. Cruz said basically that. He claimed Mitt Romney lobbied and got a single high ranking church member to put out a statement. He didn't say "rogue" or "without authorization" per se, though it may have been implied. He said that the senior member of the church had bad legal advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share