The New Class of Sinners

People who put sugar on their porridge are not really true Scotsmen though! Just sayin’. 😆

People who put sugar on their porridge are not really true Scotsmen though! Just sayin’. 😆

People who don’t agree with Richard G. Scott are not really true Scotsmen. That much is certain.

Agreed, but I don’t see how this catagorization is anything new. It’s certainly not a “new class of sinners”. There are the valiant members of the Church, worthy of the Celestial Kingdom, and those who are “not valiant”.

The “member in good standing” and “temple worthy” labels already permeate the culture and divide members, active members, into the wheat and tares.

The only thing missing is extending the November policy to temple recommends. You have to disavow whatever it is you have to disavow to sup with the saints.

/rant

The thought occurred to me about prophetic succession. With Pres Monson’s dementia, it seems like it would be a good time for someone else to step in. However, with Nelson and Oaks recent talks on gays, it almost seems that would be worse.

This is all speculation but for the last several years I think we’ve already been seeing what a Nelson and Oaks led church would look like.

It’s the same strategy that the traditional Christian world uses to marginalize Mormons. They say we are not true Christians (or Christians at all) because we don’t believe in Christ as a Spirit in the Holy Trinity. That we believe he has a body of flesh and bones and is part of a Godhead instead.

So, they take something that distinguishes us from them, and use that distinction to exclude us in a new definition of what a Christian is. It’s so nakedly obvious what they are doing, it carries now weight in my view. I find it actually rather disgusting from a critical thinking perspective. They started with the goal of marginalizing us, and then invented a definition of Christianity that served that purpose. And much of their followership cites it and believes it.

I’m so glad I don’t have to put up with that anymore since I don’t do much missionary work.

I went back and read Elder Oaks’ talk. I found this statement:

The inspiration identifying the need for a proclamation on the family came to the leadership of the Church over 23 years ago. It was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and the family were well understood without restatement.8

Seems to me that the church has been preaching against the equal rights amendment, Women’s liberation, the sexual revolution, birth control and basically every other movement for as long as anyone can remember. I remember everyone running out to frame the Proclamation and hang it on their walls. Could it be that there was actual disagreement within the church membership or leadership about this course of action? Is it possible that some in 1995 said, “traditional marriage and family are so entrenched, why are we wasting our time stating the obvious?” Perhaps the footnote will add some insight into what Elder Oaks meant.

Our Young Women General President said it well 20 years later: “Little did we realize then how very desperately we would need these basic declarations in today’s world as the criteria by which we could judge each new wind of worldly dogma coming at us from the media, the Internet, scholars, TV and films, and even legislators. The proclamation on the family has become our benchmark for judging the philosophies of the world, and I testify that the principles set forth within this statement are as true today as they were when they were given to us by a prophet of God nearly 20 years ago” (Bonnie L. Oscarson, “Defenders of the Family Proclamation,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2015, 14–15).

Sooooo “exhibit A” for demonstrating how unexpected (perhaps even seen as unnecessary) the Proclamation was 23 years ago is…. (wait for it)…. something said by Sister Oscarson a scant two years ago. That tickles my funny bone with irony. :lolno: :lolno: :lolno:

I believe that Elder Oaks is trying to imply that the Proclamation was not really needed in 1995 in order to bolster the argument for its prophetic nature. “See, the Proclamation only became necessary long after the fact. God was in charge and was preparing us step by step. He foresaw the culture wars in which we now find ourselves and was preparing every needful thing.”

To be completely fair to Elder Oaks, he is probably not responsible for the circular reasoning footnote. I wonder whose job that is.

The inspiration identifying the need for a proclamation on the family came to the leadership of the Church over 23 years ago. It was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and the family were well understood without restatement.

The “inspiration” was that the church didn’t have grounds to oppose gay marriage in Hawaii because nothing was in writing prohibiting gay marriage. Was the assumption clear to the top leaders of the church that gay marriage was in opposition to the Plan of Salvation? Sure. But they had nothing in writing specific enough to justify their intervention in the legal matter.

Now, here’s something that would have been prophetic: opposing single parent adoption which was illegal in most states in the 1970s. That’s what opened the door to both gay adoptions and eventually the foundation for gay marriage. If singles can adopt, that means that some of them will be gay, and in committed relationships. It’s really the thing that set up gay marriage more than any other because if gay people are already trying to form stable families, it’s hard to create grounds to keep them from having healthcare benefits and other societal safety nets because we are just punishing the kids.

The Proclamation as written provides the grounds (equally) for opposing single parents. But it was never used that way. Singles have been legally able to adopt since well before gay marriage was legalized (it was illegal in the 1970s). The church didn’t foresee the problem, and didn’t spend millions of dollars to oppose single parent adoption which (IMO) puts the lie to the Proclamation. If we don’t oppose single parent adoption equal to gay marriage, then the Proclamation doesn’t mean what it says. We are specifically and uniquely targeting gay couples.

**Personally, I think opposing single parent adoption is wrong (as is opposing gay couples adopting) when there is a surplus of children not being adopted. There are not enough hetero couples willing to adopt all these kids, full stop. Gay marriage provides a safety net for kids who need homes. Allowing gay couples to marry changed what it meant to be gay. It used to be promiscuous and unstable, but gay marriage made a path for those who wanted stability and monogamy and families.