Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. Thank you for that thoughtful explanation along with your personal point of view.
I'm in the polar opposite situation, belonging to a church that has long championed gay rights, ordains openly gay clergy, and performs same sex union blessings. The problem becomes that this is all people see about our church.
There's an organization called gaychurch.org that has a little rainbow logo for churches to add to their websites to let gay people know they are welcome, and someone (straight) in our church wanted to put that logo on our website. Our most active gay member said no, don't do it--it's not a gay church. It's just a church.
There's an organization called gaychurch.org that has a little rainbow logo for churches to add to their websites to let gay people know they are welcome, and someone (straight) in our church wanted to put that logo on our website. Our most active gay member said no, don't do it--it's not a gay church. It's just a church.
Yeah, makes about as much sense as a gay shoe store or a gay car repair shop. Sexual orientation is not relevant to an awful lot of things except when we make it relevant by discriminating and excluding when we shouldn't. I made a similar point the other day about atheism. It'd be even more ridiculous to have, say, an atheist bakery or an atheist shoe store. Atheism is a very narrow belief position about a particular thing and it's not relevant to most everyday considerations. No wonder most atheists aren't joiners based on atheism. Almost everything that the small atheist organizations do could be done for reasons completely unrelated to atheism.
And lo and behold, when the assimilation and acceptance of homosexuality into society is complete they will have little reason to have most of the organizations they presently have, which exist largely to combat stereotyping and discrimination. And your church will have no need to even be tempted to say that gays are welcome ... anymore than you're now tempted to say that left handed people will find welcome with you.
Yeah, makes about as much sense as a gay shoe store or a gay car repair shop. Sexual orientation is not relevant to an awful lot of things except when we make it relevant by discriminating and excluding when we shouldn't. I made a similar point the other day about atheism. It'd be even more ridiculous to have, say, an atheist bakery or an atheist shoe store. Atheism is a very narrow belief position about a particular thing and it's not relevant to most everyday considerations. No wonder most atheists aren't joiners based on atheism. Almost everything that the small atheist organizations do could be done for reasons completely unrelated to atheism.
And lo and behold, when the assimilation and acceptance of homosexuality into society is complete they will have little reason to have most of the organizations they presently have, which exist largely to combat stereotyping and discrimination. And your church will have no need to even be tempted to say that gays are welcome ... anymore than you're now tempted to say that left handed people will find welcome with you.
Exactly! Hopefully we will get there sooner rather than later.
I suspect you view that the President is a prophet.
That's a correct assumption. We do believe in continuing revelation from God to living prophets. That's one of the things that makes Mormonism distinct from other Christian denominations, and it's something I like about my religion. To me, it makes no sense that God would speak to humanity for 4000 years through His chosen prophets and then suddenly decide to shut up and leave us with nothing more than a book to go on. Most people know that we believe Joseph Smith to have been a prophet of God. A lot of people don't realize that we believe the earth has not been without a living prophet since 1830. Since Joseph Smith was killed by a mob of "Christians" in 1843, there have been fifteen other men who are believed by practicing Mormons to have been prophets -- in exactly the same sense in which Moses, Abraham and Isaiah were prophets.
Quote:
Assuming that is correct, do you view it in the literal sense as it used to be defined in the Bible, where there are direct revelations from God, or do you see it in a more metaphorical sense?
I'd have to say that we view it in a literal sense, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we understand the term in exactly the same way as you do. To us, a prophet is not just a person who foresees the future, although that could conceivably happen. It's a person whom God has chosen to be His spokesman. When God wants to communicate to His Church as a whole, He does so through that individual.
With respect to how God communicates to His prophets, I would describe it as being something kind of in between actually "hearing an audible voice" and just "thinking and feeling." That's a hard concept to explain. Mormons believe that all of us (individual members and our leaders) are entitled to personal revelation. By "personal revelation," I mean revelation pertaining specifically to our own lives, and not to the Church as a whole. I think a lot of Mormons feel that practically every decision they ever make is as a result of having received a revelation. I have been known to be pretty critical of those kinds of people. I used to tell my husband that "Debbie has to have 'the Spirit' tell her whether to cook sausage or bacon for breakfast." I can't speak for other people, but for me, that's not how it works. I can say that there was once in my life when I believe God revealed to me something that changed the course of my life. When it happened, I just felt a sudden, extremely powerful prompting that I absolutely had to take a course of action that had never occurred to me to take. I acted on what I felt and it proved to be a very wise move. Yes, you could call it a hunch, but given the circumstances in which it came, I can't call it that myself.
Quote:
I can see huge issues of conflict if you see it in the literal sense. If you see it from metaphorical point of view, if that is even allowed in the LDS Church, then I can see the wiggle room where anyone could stay faithful within the church yet still differ from the utterances that were outlined in the article I posted.
The thing is, in order to understand the "issues of conflict" that you perceive, you kind of have to be able to distinguish between doctrine and policy. It is also helpful to be able to distinguish between revelation and inspiration.
Doctrines are eternal truths revealed by God. "Eternal" means unchanging. Doctrines come from God and cannot be modified over time. Period. Policies are made by human beings (notably by the "First Presidency" and "The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles") and can be changed as circumstances warrant. These policies determine how the Church runs. When the Church changed the age at which missionaries could begin their service a few years back, this was a policy change. When it was determined that members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir could not wear beards, this was a policy (one of the dumber ones, in my opinion). There are a lot of other policies I could cite as examples, but you probably get the drift. I am certain that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve pray before making any policy decision. When they ultimately arrive at their decision to institute a new policy, I believe they would say they were "inspired" to do so. It's almost unheard of for them to claim that they have received a revelation from God when they implement a policy change. Here's an example of that I mean:
In the early days of the Church, Black men were permitted to hold the Church's priesthood. Joseph Smith personally ordained at least one Black man to the priesthood. It was under Brigham Young's direction that this policy was changed. The Church now acknowledges that it was never anything other than a policy, but I strongly believe that Brigham Young would have said he instituted this policy as a result of revelation. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He may have very well believed He was doing God's will, but the bottom line is that he wasn't. Whether we like it or not, people are a product of the culture in which they live. Back in Brigham Young's day, his views towards Blacks were pretty much the norm in American society. I believe the day will come when this new policy (as it pertains to the children of same-sex couples) is changed. It may not be for quite a long time, but I believe that as surely as the ban against Black men holding the priesthood was lifted, this exclusionary practice will be, too. I suspect that when it happens, it will happen quietly and discretely.
Quote:
I personally think that the church will need to adapt to a more metaphorical teaching as people become more and more aware of secular realities.
Maybe I don't fully understand what you mean when you use the phrase "metaphorical teaching." Mormons (including me) do believe that God still speaks to mankind in ways that, when they happen, we can't deny. I just think the words "revelation" and "inspiration" are used a little more interchangeably than they maybe should be.
I hope you see this. I was so focused the other day on addressing cupper's post that I completely spaced answering yours. And I had wanted to all along, since it definitely deserves comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JIMANDTHOM
I like your final paragraph. Jim and I will present ourselves to God(if there is one) and take it as it comes. We were together 38 years before we got married in 2014 and they are/were good years, ups and downs but we made it.
Wow! You're only about 5 years behind my hubby and me. Any relationship has it's ups and downs, as I'm sure I don't need to tell you. Congratulations on your long and happy life together and on finally being able to make it "official."
Quote:
The last two years have been a spiritual reawakening as we are sort of becoming 1 person. Can't really explain it but I know it is good.
You don't need to explain it. It makes perfect sense.
Quote:
We would rather spend eternity together and not be in heaven, than to be heaven without each other. That would be our hell.
Again, I know what you mean. I have often said that if I couldn't have my loved ones with me (including all of my pets ), heaven won't be heaven at all.
Just one more comment before I go... John Gustav-Wrathall (the newly-elected president of Affirmation: LGBT Mormons, Families & Friends, an international organization founded in 1977 to support LGBTQ/SSA Mormons and their families, friends and Church leaders) was asked, about two weeks after the Church's initial announcement was made, to write an article expressing his thoughts on it. I was going to quote a few sentences from that article, but there is just too much worthwhile stuff in the article for me to post here. So anyway, I'm providing a link to his article. It's called "All Flesh". The article is primarily directed to Mormons, but I think the second, third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of his article would be of interest to most people who care about this issue.
Katzpur-----thank you for words and for the link. I'm off to work and will read it more thoroughly when I get home tonight.
One line that caught my eye in a quick run through was the line about the liberation from the closet, as a sign/gift from god. Yes---something did change. Once again can't explain it just know that it did.
To us, a prophet is not just a person who foresees the future, although that could conceivably happen. It's a person whom God has chosen to be His spokesman. When God wants to communicate to His Church as a whole, He does so through that individual.
I think that is actually consistent with actual Christian doctrine, although I agree that many Christians have such a poor grasp of their own doctrine in this area that they conflate "prophet" with "prophesy". I was always taught that a prophet was not just or even at all a "fore-teller" but primarily a "forth-teller". It is clear that much of what the Jewish prophets had to say was alleged to be god's message for that day and hour to the people of that moment. Also in the New Testament while there doesn't seem to be an official concept of a prophet channeling god (since this is supposed to be the function of the Holy Spirit within each believer) there is a debatable concept of a "prophetic gift" over which the main controversy is what exactly the gift consists of and whether it was some provisional gift for the pre-canonical era that is no longer needed, or is ongoing in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
I can say that there was once in my life when I believe God revealed to me something that changed the course of my life. When it happened, I just felt a sudden, extremely powerful prompting that I absolutely had to take a course of action that had never occurred to me to take. I acted on what I felt and it proved to be a very wise move. Yes, you could call it a hunch, but given the circumstances in which it came, I can't call it that myself.
I am not here to tell you what it was or wasn't as that is not my place, but I WILL say that the sort of thing you describe requires nothing more than the subconscious mind to explain it. You can counter by saying that some or all of what we misconstrue to be the subconscious is actually the prompting of the Holy Spirit but that seems like a rather random assertion which, again, isn't needed to explain the kind of insight that you describe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
In the early days of the Church, Black men were permitted to hold the Church's priesthood. Joseph Smith personally ordained at least one Black man to the priesthood. It was under Brigham Young's direction that this policy was changed. The Church now acknowledges that it was never anything other than a policy, but I strongly believe that Brigham Young would have said he instituted this policy as a result of revelation. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He may have very well believed He was doing God's will, but the bottom line is that he wasn't. Whether we like it or not, people are a product of the culture in which they live. Back in Brigham Young's day, his views towards Blacks were pretty much the norm in American society. I believe the day will come when this new policy (as it pertains to the children of same-sex couples) is changed. It may not be for quite a long time, but I believe that as surely as the ban against Black men holding the priesthood was lifted, this exclusionary practice will be, too. I suspect that when it happens, it will happen quietly and discretely.
I completely agree with this assessment but I have to point out that it begs a very important question: If any given member of church leadership is a product of their times and by your own admission prone to making decisions they believe are supported by god, issue edicts in the name of that god, and still be primarily reflecting their times, what is the benefit of this religious superstructure of yours? Why not dispense with it and just admit that we are all making it up as we go and doing the best that we can? Why hide behind the sacred and do things in the name of the sacred when we are all "products of our time", that is of the profane? Is not all this maneuvering simply an inflation?
I believe the answer to this is that technically it's all a baroque fig leaf over human nature, but people persist in it anyway because they feel they NEED the sacred to control their fear of annihilation / mortality and insignificance in an impersonal universe. And we as a species have very little experience facing bare-metal reality without all the shamanic trappings.
Katzpur, you have such a way with words and your posts are so thought provoking, thorough, and well written and I really appreciate them. The forum is lucky to have someone of your caliber posting on behalf of the LDS Church. You write in such a non judgmental way while still getting your point across. Thank you for all your posts and explanations.
Katzpur, you have such a way with words and your posts are so thought provoking, thorough, and well written and I really appreciate them. The forum is lucky to have someone of your caliber posting on behalf of the LDS Church. You write in such a non judgmental way while still getting your point across. Thank you for all your posts and explanations.
Th . I think a lot of Mormons feel that practically every decision they ever make is as a result of having received a revelation. I have been known to be pretty critical of those kinds of people. .
LOL,yes a lot of them do.I remember sitting in a priesthood meeting and listening to one of the guys ponder how non-members decide whether to take a job or not or whether to move or not since they don't have the 'spirit' with them to guide them.I bit my lip and rolled my eyes a bit bemused by the fact that someone didn't feel capable of making everyday decisions in their lives without Gods guidance in all things.I've heard others talk about how God led them to buy the house they purchased or their new car.I'm sure God cares whether you drive a Ford vs a Toyota.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
