The question was put:
"It seems that there are many in the church that are not TR holders. I have looked at the interview questions and realized there was not much there that most LDS members could fail on. I.E. Do you believe in the restored gospel, believe in the prophet, believe in the priesthood, do you carry out your calling...etc etc. Just obvious stuff that church members would follow otherwise, why be a LDS right?
So that leaves, being honest with your fellow man, chastity, tithing, Word of Wisdom, and temple endowment obligations if you have been given them.
So out of all the members that do not hold TR's, what do you think are the biggest culprits keeping them out?"
To which I responded:
In my opinion, hands down, the two big barriers for people truly wanting to go to the temple are: (1) actual or perceived (usually perceived) violations of the law of chastity; and (2) tithing.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Is There A Middle Way Of Mormonism?
The question was put:
"I'm referring to Stay LDS/Mormon.
Quote
StayLDS.com is dedicated to helping people who are struggling in some way to remain involved in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are committed to being a supportive, positive environment in which people with any difficulty can commune openly and honestly in a spirit of love and support.
An overview of our approach to reconciling with the church after a crisis of faith can be found here.
Within our online support forum, no topic is off limits, as long as it is approached and discussed in a civil, non-threatening, understanding way. It is fine to express disappointment, frustration, despair, grief and any other manifestation of internal struggle; it is not acceptable to dwell on bitterness, anger and strident accusations. It is fine to voice institutional concerns; it is not acceptable to disparage or criticize individual leaders â?? or to condemn â??The Churchâ? itself.
We have also compiled a library of support resources to help people who are struggling to stay LDS, including:
* A multimedia presentation entitled â??Why People Leave the Churchâ? â?? to help family, friends and church leaders understand the point of view of someone struggling with the church
* A podcast feed (iTunes required) â?? including several audio interviews and presentations about staying in the church
* We are currently working on a StayLDS Wiki site â?? which will serve as a compilation of advice, perspectives and strategies for remaining in the church after a major crisis of faith.
This is not a place for polemics, debate or heated argument; it also is not a place for classic â??apologeticsâ?Â. While we would love to help anyone, this site is focused primarily on those who have moved past their initial feelings of bitterness and anger â?? or, at least, desire to do so and remain actively engaged with and/or within the LDS Church.
(Emphasis added)
A more detailed explanation is given at How to Stay in the LDS Church After a Major Challenge to Your Faith .
Quote
Once you move past the "true/false" paradigm, you can dramatically lower your expectations of the church. If you expect perfection from the LDS church, or if you dismiss all other churches as abominations -- you will likely be disappointed on both fronts. If the church leadership falls short at times in your estimation -- try to realize that they are all trying their best to fulfill their callings while balancing work, family, and personal stuff -- and stumbling a great deal along the way. As Paul said, "we see through a glass, darkly."
Opinions.
At another board John Dehlin wrote:
Quote
If you start w/ the fact that 60-70% of all LDS church members are completely inactive (or don't even consider themselves LDS) -- then add the fact that a big chunk of active LDS (70%?) do not have a temple recommend/pay tithing, etc......
I think it's not hard to make a claim that most LDS church members are engaging the church on their own terms.
For example, I think that 70% of active members do not believe in polygamy any more...in spite of the fact that it's still in D&C 132.
It's also my personal experience that most LDS folk do not have a hard and fast, literal, orthodox view of "the one true church" idea. If you speak with them one on one, they will almost always acknowledge that there are likely many pathways to heaven. Most will conclude, when lovingly nudged, that this is the best path they can find...and that if they are wrong....they will have not lost anything significant, and will have likely benefitted, by living a good Mormon life.
Anyway -- I think that far too often we listen to the words of the most vocally dogmatic within a ward and extrapolate those words out to the entire congregation -- when in reality, it is THEY (the dogmatic orthodox) who are in the minority.
Just my opinion and experience. Totally anecdotal.
What is your impression of John's anecdotal assessment? True or false? (Or, "middle way"?)
My feeling is that ultimately there is no "middle way", and numerous General Authority statements support this. Of course some people do create their own personal "middle way" (such as the Liahona).
From one apologetic viewpoint, Daniel C. Peterson:
Quote
I regard challenges to the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon as misguided. I think they're mistaken. I really do believe it's kind of an either/or, that either the Book of Mormon is historical, or if it's not, all the founding narratives of the church become ... problematized, to use the intellectual word for it. If there were no Nephites, who was Moroni? Where did the plates come from? ... Is God using deception? Is Joseph Smith using deception? Then what happens to all the claims of the church? It seems to me very hard to maintain a consistent middle ground there, and so I'm troubled by those sorts of arguments.
On the other hand I know people who are active, faithful members of the church who don't believe in the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. ... I'm not in a hurry to throw them out. I would like to convince them otherwise, but as long as they're doing their home teaching and doing the things they should be doing and raising their children well, I see no reason to take action against them, unless they begin to teach and advocate that in church meetings. ...
(Emphasis added)
PBS Interview.
So where do you stand? Are you one or the other, or a mixture of both?
And just for personal clarification, again from Stay LDS:
Quote
Nonetheless, we have corresponded with literally hundreds of disaffected Mormons over the past several years, and it always amazes us that an astoundingly large percentage of those who have left the church have not (in the long run) found the peace, solace and spirituality that they thought they find would upon leaving. Some have, we will admit. But a heavy percentage to this day write us to say, "I wish I could go back. I thought I wouldn't miss it, but I do. I desperately miss the church. I just don't know how to return, or how to make it all work."
That is not the case with me. And I would ask, is there really "an astoundingly large percentage of those who have left the church have not (in the long run) found the peace, solace and spirituality that they thought they find would upon leaving"?
If that really were the case, the Church would be reaping an enormous harvest of returnees. I don't see this happening."
To which I responded:
In some ways, I guess I wish I could believe in Santa Clause again. But that will never be possible, ever since the day I went into my mom's closet and saw all the presents that were about to be wrapped and distributed to the kids the next day as gifts from Santa. Now that I know the truth, I would never want to believe again what I now know is false. But what I still long for at times is the comfort which came from believing in that magical thing called Santa Clause.
Admittedly, this is an imperfect analogy. There is no "room full of presents," so to speak, that I have access to which proves the church false. In fact, despite all of my criticisms and vigorous disagreements with church doctrine, I still believe in the authenticity and wisdom of many of its purported revelations. For example, I believe God really did instill in Joseph Smith's mind the importance of taking care of our bodies and refraining from using harmful substances. I also believe Joseph Smith really was a prophet of God, albeit a flawed one, who, like all human beings, was influenced in his personal opinions, desires, background, and concerns which mingled with his perceived revelations to produce the Book of Mormon and other LDS scripture.
I believe there is "middle ground" in Mormonism, but it is the struggle of a lifetime to tread upon. A person with liberal religious views who identifies with much of the Mormon doctrine and way of life will almost inevitably be faced with an all-too frequent dilemma: whether to shut up and face the internal disharmony between your own intellect and what you are told, or instead to stand up boldly for what you believe in, knowing that you will likely be disciplined or even cast out for it. The problem is magnified tenfold if you have children and a more-believing spouse who wishes to raise them actively in the church.
I doubt that I will ever hold the view that nothing good can come from being active in the LDS faith. In my own life, it has brought me both immeasurable blessings and tremendous heartaches and disappointments. I suppose the biggest single thing, apart from social pressure, which keeps me in the church is hope- hope that one day, a critical mass of critical thinking will combine to bring about the humility needed for church leaders to correct what I perceive to be grave errors in church doctrine, policy, and culture. Until that happens, which I realize will likely not be in my lifetime or even in the lifetime of my children, it seems I will continue running the marathon, and will in many ways devote my life to bringing about in others the enlightenment I feel I have received. Sometimes I wonder whether my endurance and patience in this regard is a waste of my energy and my life. But as one poet once said, "When liberty lay wanting, no lives were lost in vain."
"I'm referring to Stay LDS/Mormon.
Quote
StayLDS.com is dedicated to helping people who are struggling in some way to remain involved in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are committed to being a supportive, positive environment in which people with any difficulty can commune openly and honestly in a spirit of love and support.
An overview of our approach to reconciling with the church after a crisis of faith can be found here.
Within our online support forum, no topic is off limits, as long as it is approached and discussed in a civil, non-threatening, understanding way. It is fine to express disappointment, frustration, despair, grief and any other manifestation of internal struggle; it is not acceptable to dwell on bitterness, anger and strident accusations. It is fine to voice institutional concerns; it is not acceptable to disparage or criticize individual leaders â?? or to condemn â??The Churchâ? itself.
We have also compiled a library of support resources to help people who are struggling to stay LDS, including:
* A multimedia presentation entitled â??Why People Leave the Churchâ? â?? to help family, friends and church leaders understand the point of view of someone struggling with the church
* A podcast feed (iTunes required) â?? including several audio interviews and presentations about staying in the church
* We are currently working on a StayLDS Wiki site â?? which will serve as a compilation of advice, perspectives and strategies for remaining in the church after a major crisis of faith.
This is not a place for polemics, debate or heated argument; it also is not a place for classic â??apologeticsâ?Â. While we would love to help anyone, this site is focused primarily on those who have moved past their initial feelings of bitterness and anger â?? or, at least, desire to do so and remain actively engaged with and/or within the LDS Church.
(Emphasis added)
A more detailed explanation is given at How to Stay in the LDS Church After a Major Challenge to Your Faith .
Quote
Once you move past the "true/false" paradigm, you can dramatically lower your expectations of the church. If you expect perfection from the LDS church, or if you dismiss all other churches as abominations -- you will likely be disappointed on both fronts. If the church leadership falls short at times in your estimation -- try to realize that they are all trying their best to fulfill their callings while balancing work, family, and personal stuff -- and stumbling a great deal along the way. As Paul said, "we see through a glass, darkly."
Opinions.
At another board John Dehlin wrote:
Quote
If you start w/ the fact that 60-70% of all LDS church members are completely inactive (or don't even consider themselves LDS) -- then add the fact that a big chunk of active LDS (70%?) do not have a temple recommend/pay tithing, etc......
I think it's not hard to make a claim that most LDS church members are engaging the church on their own terms.
For example, I think that 70% of active members do not believe in polygamy any more...in spite of the fact that it's still in D&C 132.
It's also my personal experience that most LDS folk do not have a hard and fast, literal, orthodox view of "the one true church" idea. If you speak with them one on one, they will almost always acknowledge that there are likely many pathways to heaven. Most will conclude, when lovingly nudged, that this is the best path they can find...and that if they are wrong....they will have not lost anything significant, and will have likely benefitted, by living a good Mormon life.
Anyway -- I think that far too often we listen to the words of the most vocally dogmatic within a ward and extrapolate those words out to the entire congregation -- when in reality, it is THEY (the dogmatic orthodox) who are in the minority.
Just my opinion and experience. Totally anecdotal.
What is your impression of John's anecdotal assessment? True or false? (Or, "middle way"?)
My feeling is that ultimately there is no "middle way", and numerous General Authority statements support this. Of course some people do create their own personal "middle way" (such as the Liahona).
From one apologetic viewpoint, Daniel C. Peterson:
Quote
I regard challenges to the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon as misguided. I think they're mistaken. I really do believe it's kind of an either/or, that either the Book of Mormon is historical, or if it's not, all the founding narratives of the church become ... problematized, to use the intellectual word for it. If there were no Nephites, who was Moroni? Where did the plates come from? ... Is God using deception? Is Joseph Smith using deception? Then what happens to all the claims of the church? It seems to me very hard to maintain a consistent middle ground there, and so I'm troubled by those sorts of arguments.
On the other hand I know people who are active, faithful members of the church who don't believe in the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. ... I'm not in a hurry to throw them out. I would like to convince them otherwise, but as long as they're doing their home teaching and doing the things they should be doing and raising their children well, I see no reason to take action against them, unless they begin to teach and advocate that in church meetings. ...
(Emphasis added)
PBS Interview.
So where do you stand? Are you one or the other, or a mixture of both?
And just for personal clarification, again from Stay LDS:
Quote
Nonetheless, we have corresponded with literally hundreds of disaffected Mormons over the past several years, and it always amazes us that an astoundingly large percentage of those who have left the church have not (in the long run) found the peace, solace and spirituality that they thought they find would upon leaving. Some have, we will admit. But a heavy percentage to this day write us to say, "I wish I could go back. I thought I wouldn't miss it, but I do. I desperately miss the church. I just don't know how to return, or how to make it all work."
That is not the case with me. And I would ask, is there really "an astoundingly large percentage of those who have left the church have not (in the long run) found the peace, solace and spirituality that they thought they find would upon leaving"?
If that really were the case, the Church would be reaping an enormous harvest of returnees. I don't see this happening."
To which I responded:
In some ways, I guess I wish I could believe in Santa Clause again. But that will never be possible, ever since the day I went into my mom's closet and saw all the presents that were about to be wrapped and distributed to the kids the next day as gifts from Santa. Now that I know the truth, I would never want to believe again what I now know is false. But what I still long for at times is the comfort which came from believing in that magical thing called Santa Clause.
Admittedly, this is an imperfect analogy. There is no "room full of presents," so to speak, that I have access to which proves the church false. In fact, despite all of my criticisms and vigorous disagreements with church doctrine, I still believe in the authenticity and wisdom of many of its purported revelations. For example, I believe God really did instill in Joseph Smith's mind the importance of taking care of our bodies and refraining from using harmful substances. I also believe Joseph Smith really was a prophet of God, albeit a flawed one, who, like all human beings, was influenced in his personal opinions, desires, background, and concerns which mingled with his perceived revelations to produce the Book of Mormon and other LDS scripture.
I believe there is "middle ground" in Mormonism, but it is the struggle of a lifetime to tread upon. A person with liberal religious views who identifies with much of the Mormon doctrine and way of life will almost inevitably be faced with an all-too frequent dilemma: whether to shut up and face the internal disharmony between your own intellect and what you are told, or instead to stand up boldly for what you believe in, knowing that you will likely be disciplined or even cast out for it. The problem is magnified tenfold if you have children and a more-believing spouse who wishes to raise them actively in the church.
I doubt that I will ever hold the view that nothing good can come from being active in the LDS faith. In my own life, it has brought me both immeasurable blessings and tremendous heartaches and disappointments. I suppose the biggest single thing, apart from social pressure, which keeps me in the church is hope- hope that one day, a critical mass of critical thinking will combine to bring about the humility needed for church leaders to correct what I perceive to be grave errors in church doctrine, policy, and culture. Until that happens, which I realize will likely not be in my lifetime or even in the lifetime of my children, it seems I will continue running the marathon, and will in many ways devote my life to bringing about in others the enlightenment I feel I have received. Sometimes I wonder whether my endurance and patience in this regard is a waste of my energy and my life. But as one poet once said, "When liberty lay wanting, no lives were lost in vain."
On The "Infallibility" Of Prophets
The comment was made:
"File this under "damned if you do and damned it you don't." The critics say that our Presidents and Apostles are not Prophets by citing there weaknesses and mistakes, while excusing the failings of their own leaders by saying they are just men. Where did the notion that a Prophet was without sin and never mistaken about anything come from anyway? I know of the O.T. scripture which states that if a Prophet, makes "prophecies" and they come to pass he is not a Prophet. But who would ever think that a Prophet whenever he speaks is always speaking as a Prophet? The standard that others want to impose on our leaders is one where every word they speak (even if ordering dinner) is doctrine. What Prophet in any age could be held to this standard?
I have also been fascinated by the story of Samson from the O.T. Here an Angel of the Lord, sent by God to the wife of Manoah, to declare that she would have a son (who was Samson) and he would begin to deliver Israel from the Philistines. We all know what a disaster he (Samson) was, married outside the covenant (a Philistine), riotous living, cavorting with harlots, etc, etc, etc. In this story â??Godâ? who knows the all things, did he not foresee this? Here are the scriptures that tell of the beginning of this story. I would list the ones of Samsonâ??s sins and how he did not deliver Israel from the Philistines, but there are just too many. Notice how this story is also laced with WoW standards.
Does this mean (using the story of Samson) that God is not a Prophet? If he could be mistaken then why not a man?"
To which I responded:
As I see it, the issue is not about whether prophets, who by definition are human beings, are fallible in the sense that they, too, sin and are imperfect. The issue is the reliability of the alleged prophetic utterance, especially when it comes to doctrinal pronouncements. It is plain to see that in nearly all if not all instances, prophets are necessarily influenced by their own background and personal opinions and values that they have developed over a lifetime (take, for example, comments by Brigham Young which would never be uttered in public by any General Authority because of how racist the comments sound, yet apologists often dismiss these by saying things like, "Well BY was just a product of his time," etc.). It is the proper thing to admit the fallibility of prophets, but if we are going to go that route, we must also accept what logically flows from that: because prophets do err, we are within our right to question, to probe, and to openly debate the authenticity and accuracy of purported revelations. The problem in the LDS culture is the stifling of questioning and open discussion, through a heirarchical system which pretends prophetic infallibility for purposes of current doctrine. Interestingly, the level of pretended or assumed infallibility varies depending upon the circle in which the subject comes up. In sacrament meeting or in the temple, the prophet is somehow viewed as infallible; yet in discussions with non-members or on boards like this, members are much more likely to openly concede and discuss prophetic fallibility. We cannot have it both ways; we cannot concede the fallibility of prophets while simultaneously punishing members for questioning or disagreeing with the prophet.
"File this under "damned if you do and damned it you don't." The critics say that our Presidents and Apostles are not Prophets by citing there weaknesses and mistakes, while excusing the failings of their own leaders by saying they are just men. Where did the notion that a Prophet was without sin and never mistaken about anything come from anyway? I know of the O.T. scripture which states that if a Prophet, makes "prophecies" and they come to pass he is not a Prophet. But who would ever think that a Prophet whenever he speaks is always speaking as a Prophet? The standard that others want to impose on our leaders is one where every word they speak (even if ordering dinner) is doctrine. What Prophet in any age could be held to this standard?
I have also been fascinated by the story of Samson from the O.T. Here an Angel of the Lord, sent by God to the wife of Manoah, to declare that she would have a son (who was Samson) and he would begin to deliver Israel from the Philistines. We all know what a disaster he (Samson) was, married outside the covenant (a Philistine), riotous living, cavorting with harlots, etc, etc, etc. In this story â??Godâ? who knows the all things, did he not foresee this? Here are the scriptures that tell of the beginning of this story. I would list the ones of Samsonâ??s sins and how he did not deliver Israel from the Philistines, but there are just too many. Notice how this story is also laced with WoW standards.
Does this mean (using the story of Samson) that God is not a Prophet? If he could be mistaken then why not a man?"
To which I responded:
As I see it, the issue is not about whether prophets, who by definition are human beings, are fallible in the sense that they, too, sin and are imperfect. The issue is the reliability of the alleged prophetic utterance, especially when it comes to doctrinal pronouncements. It is plain to see that in nearly all if not all instances, prophets are necessarily influenced by their own background and personal opinions and values that they have developed over a lifetime (take, for example, comments by Brigham Young which would never be uttered in public by any General Authority because of how racist the comments sound, yet apologists often dismiss these by saying things like, "Well BY was just a product of his time," etc.). It is the proper thing to admit the fallibility of prophets, but if we are going to go that route, we must also accept what logically flows from that: because prophets do err, we are within our right to question, to probe, and to openly debate the authenticity and accuracy of purported revelations. The problem in the LDS culture is the stifling of questioning and open discussion, through a heirarchical system which pretends prophetic infallibility for purposes of current doctrine. Interestingly, the level of pretended or assumed infallibility varies depending upon the circle in which the subject comes up. In sacrament meeting or in the temple, the prophet is somehow viewed as infallible; yet in discussions with non-members or on boards like this, members are much more likely to openly concede and discuss prophetic fallibility. We cannot have it both ways; we cannot concede the fallibility of prophets while simultaneously punishing members for questioning or disagreeing with the prophet.
On "Church-Shopping"
The questions were put:
"Should you look for a church that agrees with your beliefs, or a church that agrees with God?
Is there a difference? Or are you sure that your way and God's way are the same?
How can you know what God's church is? Or if He even has one.
Should one church be right (or right for you) throughout your life? Or is it appropriate to change churches now and then, because your needs change?"
To which I responded:
This raises a host of other important questions, and this subject seems like it could go on indefinitely. But here are a few points that I think are worth making:
1) Ultimately, no matter how good our intentions are, and no matter how selfless and honest we are in our search for truth, all we will have to go on are our own perception, experience, study, and reason. No matter how convincing these evidences may be to us, we must recognize and accept from the outset that they are limited and we might err despite our best efforts. This includes our perception when it comes to spiritual experiences as well.
2) The mere fact that our perception and abilities are limited and prone to error, however, should not prevent us from arriving at preliminary conclusions and convictions about what is true for now. We may ultimately be proven wrong, but if there is a just God out there who considers it our duty to find out the truth, without unmistakable signs and clear indisputable objective revelations, then I believe he will at least not fault us for erring in good faith.
3) In attempting to discern the truth, we have to balance two critical and equally important concerns, namely: (a) that our carnal selves will have an inherent bias to favor those beliefs which tend to make our lives easier and more pleasurable in the short run; and (b) that we are morally entitled to our own happiness, because God created mankind that "they might have joy." Therefore, our inquiry into what is morally right and wrong can never be limited to the simple question of whether it would be a "character-building sacrifice" to give up something we would otherwise want to have (I personlly believe it is that very principle of the quest for super-human sacrifice, taken to an extreme, which has led to a great deal of human suffering and internal misery, such as that brought about by vows of celibacy, extreme fasting, etc.). But neither can morality simply be determined on the oft-quoted and highly erroneous maxim, "if it feels good, do it," without regard to the consequences which naturally flow from our choices.
4) In selecting a religion (or set of beliefs) to adhere to, people should select one which is consistent with both their conscience and their grasp of what is true and right. To the extent people choose their religion with a disregard for the truth they have been given to understand, I think they do so at their peril. But a decision made in good faith, even if erroneous, is not frowned upon by God.
"Should you look for a church that agrees with your beliefs, or a church that agrees with God?
Is there a difference? Or are you sure that your way and God's way are the same?
How can you know what God's church is? Or if He even has one.
Should one church be right (or right for you) throughout your life? Or is it appropriate to change churches now and then, because your needs change?"
To which I responded:
This raises a host of other important questions, and this subject seems like it could go on indefinitely. But here are a few points that I think are worth making:
1) Ultimately, no matter how good our intentions are, and no matter how selfless and honest we are in our search for truth, all we will have to go on are our own perception, experience, study, and reason. No matter how convincing these evidences may be to us, we must recognize and accept from the outset that they are limited and we might err despite our best efforts. This includes our perception when it comes to spiritual experiences as well.
2) The mere fact that our perception and abilities are limited and prone to error, however, should not prevent us from arriving at preliminary conclusions and convictions about what is true for now. We may ultimately be proven wrong, but if there is a just God out there who considers it our duty to find out the truth, without unmistakable signs and clear indisputable objective revelations, then I believe he will at least not fault us for erring in good faith.
3) In attempting to discern the truth, we have to balance two critical and equally important concerns, namely: (a) that our carnal selves will have an inherent bias to favor those beliefs which tend to make our lives easier and more pleasurable in the short run; and (b) that we are morally entitled to our own happiness, because God created mankind that "they might have joy." Therefore, our inquiry into what is morally right and wrong can never be limited to the simple question of whether it would be a "character-building sacrifice" to give up something we would otherwise want to have (I personlly believe it is that very principle of the quest for super-human sacrifice, taken to an extreme, which has led to a great deal of human suffering and internal misery, such as that brought about by vows of celibacy, extreme fasting, etc.). But neither can morality simply be determined on the oft-quoted and highly erroneous maxim, "if it feels good, do it," without regard to the consequences which naturally flow from our choices.
4) In selecting a religion (or set of beliefs) to adhere to, people should select one which is consistent with both their conscience and their grasp of what is true and right. To the extent people choose their religion with a disregard for the truth they have been given to understand, I think they do so at their peril. But a decision made in good faith, even if erroneous, is not frowned upon by God.
The Law Of Plural Marriage -- Suspended? Or Revoked?
A poll asked the question:
"The Law Of Plural Marriage -- Suspended? Or Revoked?
The priesthood law requiring plural marriage was...
suspended. (10 votes [13.33%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 13.33%
revoked. (3 votes [4.00%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 4.00%
neither suspended nor revoked -- only the practice of it was suspended by the Church. (39 votes [52.00%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 52.00%
I don't believe there is such a law. (19 votes [25.33%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 25.33%
Other (explain below) (4 votes [5.33%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 5.33%"
To which I responded:
I chose option four, for several reasons. First of all, I believe that God does not command any of us to either marry at all or to marry particular individuals. I believe it is a choice he leaves to our sole discretion. Second, I do not believe that God would condition anyone's right to marry several individuals on that person's faithfulness in the LDS faith. I believe that, generally speaking, God always has, and always will, permit consenting, mature, sane adults to enter into marriage contracts with the opposite sex as they see fit, whether that be with one or more partners, so long as there is no coercion involved and the relationship is truly consensual.
For those reasons, I think it is a fiction to imagine that God ever suddenly permitted (or for that matter, commanded) JS and other priesthood holders in the Church's early days to practice polygyny. I believe that they (along with every other sane, mature, consenting adult, whether in or out of the church) always had the moral right to enter into polygamous marriage.
As for the revocation of the practice of polygamy, history strongly suggests that the sole basis and concern was opposition by the U.S. government which was causing great problems for the Church. No other reason is given as best as I recall, even in the official declaration. So in any event, there is no legitimate reason to believe that God presently restrains members of the Church from practicing consensual polygamy for the so-called moral reasons which seem to underlie present-day popular perception among LDS members.
"The Law Of Plural Marriage -- Suspended? Or Revoked?
The priesthood law requiring plural marriage was...
suspended. (10 votes [13.33%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 13.33%
revoked. (3 votes [4.00%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 4.00%
neither suspended nor revoked -- only the practice of it was suspended by the Church. (39 votes [52.00%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 52.00%
I don't believe there is such a law. (19 votes [25.33%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 25.33%
Other (explain below) (4 votes [5.33%] - View)
Percentage of vote: 5.33%"
To which I responded:
I chose option four, for several reasons. First of all, I believe that God does not command any of us to either marry at all or to marry particular individuals. I believe it is a choice he leaves to our sole discretion. Second, I do not believe that God would condition anyone's right to marry several individuals on that person's faithfulness in the LDS faith. I believe that, generally speaking, God always has, and always will, permit consenting, mature, sane adults to enter into marriage contracts with the opposite sex as they see fit, whether that be with one or more partners, so long as there is no coercion involved and the relationship is truly consensual.
For those reasons, I think it is a fiction to imagine that God ever suddenly permitted (or for that matter, commanded) JS and other priesthood holders in the Church's early days to practice polygyny. I believe that they (along with every other sane, mature, consenting adult, whether in or out of the church) always had the moral right to enter into polygamous marriage.
As for the revocation of the practice of polygamy, history strongly suggests that the sole basis and concern was opposition by the U.S. government which was causing great problems for the Church. No other reason is given as best as I recall, even in the official declaration. So in any event, there is no legitimate reason to believe that God presently restrains members of the Church from practicing consensual polygamy for the so-called moral reasons which seem to underlie present-day popular perception among LDS members.
Non-LDS Should Take No Offense At LDS Baptisms For The Dead
The question was put:
"If Baptisms For The Dead Are Fake, Phoney And Of No Effect, Why Do People Care?"
To which I responded:
I can think of some reasons, even though I don't consider them to be valid:
1) Superstition. Inasmuch as some people imagine that good people doing good things for others' souls after they die (i.e., praying, making offerings dedicated to that dead person's salvation) will do good for that person's soul, some people likewise imagine that purporting to do an act for that same soul which people perceive to be evil (i.e., baptizing them into that darned false religion called Mormonism founded by John Smith) will somehow harm that soul in the afterlife. Both are quite ridiculous in my opinion, because I believe that, ultimately, only each individual has stewardship over their ultimate destiny and salvation, and no other person, whether it be a friend, an enemy, a relative, God, or the devil, can force someone into or out of heaven.
2) Not wanting to grant a perceived victory to a false religion. Some opponents of the LDS faith probably get sick and tired of hearing the claims Mormons make about baptizing the dead into their faith. They see these perceived successes as emboldening LDS members and giving the LDS accomplishments to tout when proselytizing and selling the church's image in the media. Obstructing the church's efforts to baptize the dead helps put a wrench in the church's overall mission.
"If Baptisms For The Dead Are Fake, Phoney And Of No Effect, Why Do People Care?"
To which I responded:
I can think of some reasons, even though I don't consider them to be valid:
1) Superstition. Inasmuch as some people imagine that good people doing good things for others' souls after they die (i.e., praying, making offerings dedicated to that dead person's salvation) will do good for that person's soul, some people likewise imagine that purporting to do an act for that same soul which people perceive to be evil (i.e., baptizing them into that darned false religion called Mormonism founded by John Smith) will somehow harm that soul in the afterlife. Both are quite ridiculous in my opinion, because I believe that, ultimately, only each individual has stewardship over their ultimate destiny and salvation, and no other person, whether it be a friend, an enemy, a relative, God, or the devil, can force someone into or out of heaven.
2) Not wanting to grant a perceived victory to a false religion. Some opponents of the LDS faith probably get sick and tired of hearing the claims Mormons make about baptizing the dead into their faith. They see these perceived successes as emboldening LDS members and giving the LDS accomplishments to tout when proselytizing and selling the church's image in the media. Obstructing the church's efforts to baptize the dead helps put a wrench in the church's overall mission.
On The Claim That God Loves Those Who Keep His Commandments More Than Those Who Don't
The comment was made:
"God Doesnt Love All His Children; only those who obey commandments?
John 15
9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Fatherâ??s commandments, and abide in his love.
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
does any one have any other scriptures?"
To which I responded:
It is often said that "God is love." While I have difficulty accepting this in a literal sense, it has metaphorical value. God is no respecter of persons and will love us forever no matter what we do or how badly we screw up. When we sin, we distance ourselves from God and make it more difficult for ourselves to feel God's love. But he loves us no less.
It is not right for us to get caught up in imagining that our adherence to God's commandments makes us more loved by God than he loves those who are less righteous. God sees us for what we will eventually become, and in my personal opinion, we will probably ALL become like God one day; it is merely a matter of time. Eternal progression applies to everyone, and I don't believe that anyone will ever be at a point where they will forever stop the process of eternal progression.
"God Doesnt Love All His Children; only those who obey commandments?
John 15
9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Fatherâ??s commandments, and abide in his love.
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
does any one have any other scriptures?"
To which I responded:
It is often said that "God is love." While I have difficulty accepting this in a literal sense, it has metaphorical value. God is no respecter of persons and will love us forever no matter what we do or how badly we screw up. When we sin, we distance ourselves from God and make it more difficult for ourselves to feel God's love. But he loves us no less.
It is not right for us to get caught up in imagining that our adherence to God's commandments makes us more loved by God than he loves those who are less righteous. God sees us for what we will eventually become, and in my personal opinion, we will probably ALL become like God one day; it is merely a matter of time. Eternal progression applies to everyone, and I don't believe that anyone will ever be at a point where they will forever stop the process of eternal progression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
