Things MUST be changing.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

LookingHard wrote:

There can be some aberrations from the pattern, such as BYK’s Oct 2010 conference talk on gays,

Can you clarify for me…which talk are you referring to?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel

BKP wrote:

there are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature. A law against nature would be impossible to enforce. For instance, what good would a vote against the law of gravity do?

There are both moral and physical laws “irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world” that cannot be changed. 17 History demonstrates over and over again that moral standards cannot be changed by battle and cannot be changed by ballot. To legalize that which is basically wrong or evil will not prevent the pain and penalties that will follow as surely as night follows day.

Regardless of the opposition, we are determined to stay on course

Kind of hard not to read in this a bit of “you can vote all you want, but there is no way I could change my stance on the morality of LGBT individuals”

Heber13 wrote:

LookingHard wrote:

SWK’s pronouncement of the priesthood going to all worthy men

I am not suggesting they don’t make changes, I’m suggesting they don’t make sweeping controversial changes. SWK’s pronouncement was met with relief and rejoicing, for the most part (and a lot of “what took so long”). And it was a much softer approach than when he was younger and wrote “The Miracle of Forgiveness”, right?

I think that is what I meant…they seem to get more broad as prophet, not more issue minded. Am I wrong?

I would agree with that. A bit more figurehead – maybe even a bit more weight of the calling and “I had REALLY better be sure of myself and not mess up now that I am the prophet”

[Anonymous]

I have a hard time trusting “the church” given the extent of mistakes also.

The analogy to parents didn’t help me, because my parents are really “screwed up.” Our home contained abuse. My parents are mentally ill. They caused severe problems for their children, that have persisted long into adulthood (and are now affecting another generation). I will always love my parents, despite their mistakes. But I will never trust them.

I now feel like I’ll always love the church. But I can never trust it again. And I don’t know how to cope with that.

[Anonymous]

Thankful wrote:

I now feel like I’ll always love the church. But I can never trust it again. And I don’t know how to cope with that.

Unlike you, I don’t love the church anymore, I only respect some aspects of it. It has been a source of angst too many times in my life, and encouraged me to make too many bad decisions for me to love it. Like you, I don’t trust it either.

How to cope? I minimize its ability to affect my life in a negative way. I now realize that happiness I once felt was only possible through active church membership is possible from many other sources — and this realization doesn’t mean I’m somehow unfit, in my view.

[and by the way, I hope this doesn’t degenerate into a discussion of what the church “is”, with the conclusion its just people — it’s not — it’s policy, its leadership style, its systems, its culture — things that go well beyond individual people]

[Anonymous]

I think I’ve said before that I don’t believe most folk leave because of history, but because of present day realities.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

BKP wrote:

…as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature.

Kind of hard not to read in this a bit of “you can vote all you want, but there is no way I could change my stance on the morality of LGBT individuals”

Ah…yes…BKP’s talk. Thanks for clarifying.

Kinda funny he says this about voting…reminds me why we give a vote of consent in the church, right?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

LookingHard wrote:

BKP wrote:

…as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature.

Kind of hard not to read in this a bit of “you can vote all you want, but there is no way I could change my stance on the morality of LGBT individuals”

Ah…yes…BKP’s talk. Thanks for clarifying.

Kinda funny he says this about voting…reminds me why we give a vote of consent in the church, right?

In my FC I tried to find out what is official doctrine. One stance that I read was that something wasn’t doctrine until the church put it to vote. Wow – that could mean quite a lot (most?) things many think are our doctrine are not – at least not officially. No rated R movies, The proclamation on the family, …

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

LookingHard wrote:

BKP wrote:

…as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature.

Kind of hard not to read in this a bit of “you can vote all you want, but there is no way I could change my stance on the morality of LGBT individuals”

Ah…yes…BKP’s talk. Thanks for clarifying.

Kinda funny he says this about voting…reminds me why we give a vote of consent in the church, right?

Erp. When you said that, it reminded me of D&C 132 in which the husband has to ask the wife to consent before taking another wife, and if she says no, he can anyway. Which to me is not consent, but in the Reed Smoot trials when he fabricated the Law of Sarah out of whole cloth, he basically defended this misogynist BS by saying that it was her consent, nothing more nor less. She could give her consent or not. But basically lack of consent isn’t binding on her master, lord and husband who can do whatever he likes with whomever he likes. Common consent in the early church wasn’t like this, BTW. It is now in our branch of the church, but in the CoC they really do take a vote on admitting new scripture and your vote matters.

I realize this is taking something modern and pushing it into a different context, but imagine if this was how it worked with rape or stealing. You only get a “yes” vote or your vote doesn’t count. Well, that’s North Korea.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

In my FC I tried to find out what is official doctrine. One stance that I read was that something wasn’t doctrine until the church put it to vote. Wow – that could mean quite a lot (most?) things many think are our doctrine are not – at least not officially. No rated R movies, The proclamation on the family, …

That’s my take on it, LH, if we take the stance that doctrine is contained in the scriptures and scriptures get canonized in General Conference by a vote of common consent. The last time that happened was OD2. We’ve had some discussions here about what constitutes doctrine, and there was particularly good one not too long ago discussing doctrine vs. tradition here: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5540&hilit=doctrine+tradition” class=”bbcode_url”>http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5540&hilit=doctrine+tradition. From my point of view there is very little doctrine. No R rated movies, family proclamation, one set of earrings, no beards or caffeinated soft drinks at BYU and a slew of other things – all not doctrine.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

… and if she says no, he can anyway.

yes, actually I would say it is even worse than that. If she says no…

Quote:

D&C132:54

…But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her

Yikes!! Hey…but at least she can vote to support Joseph (if she votes “yes”). :wtf: Let her vote all she wants…

Quote:

…as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

Does anyone see this? How do you acknowledge the false premises, yet still make the sacrifices associated with full blown,TR-holding activity?

I see what you are saying, SD. I am not sure how to best express it in words.

First of all, I disagree there are “false premises”, but more often, false interpretations and perpetuation of incorrect premises. I completely understand the frustration that comes from it, and don’t devalue others who see it as having been lied to or falsely taught. There is culpability to go around. But…it doesn’t mean there were false premises on truth claims, in my view.

Second, the comparison that works for me is similar to other relationships…not other historical facts. Trust in relationships can exist whether or not someone else has been perfect, or whether they make mistakes or not. So…when I became an adult and learned of the problems my parents had…it shook me to see them as the authority figure in my life on truth and then to learn of their imperfections, that they didn’t know much more than I did, but they were good for me to trust when I was a teenager and couldn’t trust myself to be on my own making decisions. But now that I’m an adult, I see them different, accept them (flaws and all), and adjust my expectation of them as a source of truth in my life. I can still trust them, even if I see them differently. There is still value in investing in the relationship with them, to a point. I don’t let them send me to my room anymore, but I do value their advice and I invest in ways to keep a loving relationship with them.

That is how I still invest in the church, and believe the divinity claims. Perhaps on different terms than in the past, but still in an honest way, and a sincere way, and find value in it.

And I see the changes occurring because people in the church truly seek to become better and keep to truth, and believe we are seeing things more clearly to correct the past, not seeing things as dishonest in the past. And so the church will keep trying to change to the times and the needs of the people.

I think this is the MormonMatters podcast where Brad Kramer likens our family relationships over time to our relationship with the church.

http://mormonmatters.org/2014/11/03/257-negotiating-adult-faith-within-a-developing-institution/

[Author]

Posts