- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Silent Dawning – I hope you don’t mind an added thought. Just as much as you hoped you would find someone who saw eye to eye with you – there are a plethora of spouses who hoped that the churches acknowledgement and improved transparency might help them regain a connection they lost with their husband or wife. I am connected to those spouses, and all they had ever heard was how if the church fessed up, took on the tough stuff, etc. Things would change. It didn’t. The dividing walls still stand on both sides. The broken dreams and hearts still exist. The only complete power for healing comes from us.
I am sorry for both of you – and for everyone else whose marriage and family harmony hangs in the balance. I constantly pray for all of us.
I guess the question is what are you looking for in a reaction? Me? I figure most folks aren’t going to say, “Bummer. I guess the church is false. Time to go home…”
Most will respond with that terrible certainty of faith that can see this as a bump on the road and now behind them. Like polygamy you feel it pass under the wheels but it doesn’t upset the cart. It’s easier to say, “we don’t do that any more.”
If you get punched in the face don’t waste your time worrying about why you got hit, figure out how to duck the second punch.
After a day of disappointment, I don’t expect anything. And my original hope was more unconscious — I didn’t understand what was disappointing me until I felt deflated and reflected for a day — I said what it was earlier in this thread so I won’t repeat it. So, now I will go to church expecting to hear
a) nothing
b) rationalizations
c) statements that the disavowal referred to the theories, and not the original policy
d) blanket statements that we don’t understand God’s ways and its not ours to question
e) statements that the disavowal casts no doubt whatsoever on the revelation of prophets.
That’s what I expect.
AS the old proverb I found on my birthday card recently says:
“Blessed are they who expect nothing on their birthday, for they shall not be disappointed”.
Let’s reword it like this:
“Bless are they who expect the church to remain the same after priesthood ban disavowals, for they shall not be disappointed”.
So we’re all on the same page– We’re talking about the disavowal of the policy regarding caffiene in soda pop right?
Seriously. That is the level of response you’re going to get. Folks can still believe what they want. I have a close relation who is a Sealer in the Temple who is an awful, awful racist. So much so that he is not welcome in my home. He is also shockingly homophobic.
It is an innate part of his soul. When I was B1 he gave me a long lecture on how church policy was against interracial marriage. I tossed him the blue handbook and said, “show me.” Upon which he said, “it’s the way it is, they don’t put it in the book.”
Huh?
Most folks aren’t blatantly racist. This isn’t a big thing, just a confirmation of their current beliefs. If they are racist? Well, they”ll come up with a “the church policy stands, but we say that to keep the liberal media at bay.”
It isn’t seen as a prophetic infallibility issue.
SilentDawning wrote:After a day of disappointment, I don’t expect anything. And my original hope was more unconscious — I didn’t understand what was disappointing me until I felt deflated and reflected for a day — I said what it was earlier in this thread so I won’t repeat it.
So, now I will go to church expecting to hear
a) nothing
b) rationalizations
c) statements that the disavowal referred to the theories, and not the original policy
d) blanket statements that we don’t understand God’s ways and its not ours to question
e) statements that the disavowal casts no doubt whatsoever on the revelation of prophets.
That’s what I expect.
AS the old proverb I found on my birthday card recently says:
“Blessed are they who expect nothing on their birthday, for they shall not be disappointed”.
Let’s reword it like this:
“Bless are they who expect the church to remain the same after priesthood ban disavowals, for they shall not be disappointed”.
This.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
It is not like this was announced from the pulpit or something. The only reason it is getting attention is because the media got a hold of it and it has been running around the internet. We have really not heard a thing from the church other than a posting on the website. I went to the church website to read it and you really have to know what you are looking for to find it. It is far from a front page story as far as the church is concerned. It does not even carry the signature of any leader. So why would the average TBM give it much thought when the church itself hardly acknowledges it? I suspect at church this week maybe 5% have read it and that is only because they heard about it on the news. It will not even be discussed. Spoke to one of my TBM friends today about the disavowal — he said the church disavowed the theories, not not the accuracy of revelation from prophets. When I mentioned that the disavowal said “all racism” and that implies Brigham Young’s priesthood ban, he seemed to disagree. We got interrupted and it would have been inappropriate to keep at the question, so I left it. He did agree that just because someone is called to a position doesn’t mean they are infallible, but when I tried to apply his logic to the position of a prophet, he balked a bit. FYI….this is one of the few TBM’s I can talk to on issues like this, and I have to be careful….but you can see that my prediction of TBM’s reactions was, in this case, prophetic (no pun intended).
Cadence wrote:It is not like this was announced from the pulpit or something. The only reason it is getting attention is because the media got a hold of it and it has been running around the internet. We have really not heard a thing from the church other than a posting on the website. I went to the church website to read it and you really have to know what you are looking for to find it. It is far from a front page story as far as the church is concerned. It does not even carry the signature of any leader. So why would the average TBM give it much thought when the church itself hardly acknowledges it? I suspect at church this week maybe 5% have read it and that is only because they heard about it on the news. It will not even be discussed.
This is one of the main reasons I think this will have so little impact on members in general. We’re not going to have a lesson on this in priesthood any time soon.
Quote:We’re not going to have a lesson on this in priesthood any time soon.
Actually, a lot of what’s being researched and published now is preparation for an overhaul of the adult manuals. It’s pointless to change the manuals before all of the historical documentation is completed – or at least enough to make a change mean a real change. I don’t know if we will have a specific lesson on the new explanation for the ban, but publishing it is part of the overall process.
VikingCompass wrote:So we’re all on the same page–
We’re talking about the disavowal of the policy regarding caffiene in soda pop right?
Seriously. That is the level of response you’re going to get. Folks can still believe what they want. I have a close relation who is a Sealer in the Temple who is an awful, awful racist. So much so that he is not welcome in my home. He is also shockingly homophobic.
It is an innate part of his soul. When I was B1 he gave me a long lecture on how church policy was against interracial marriage. I tossed him the blue handbook and said, “show me.” Upon which he said, “it’s the way it is, they don’t put it in the book.”
Huh?
Most folks aren’t blatantly racist. This isn’t a big thing, just a confirmation of their current beliefs. If they are racist? Well, they”ll come up with a “the church policy stands, but we say that to keep the liberal media at bay.”
It isn’t seen as a prophetic infallibility issue.
Like Ray says, we’re all buffet Mormons. Unfortunately people sometimes seem to add things that aren’t even on the menu.
Even if shown this article they will probably say it’s just “lying for The Lord” and pressure from the PC brigade.
A friend was adamant that gay people chose to be gay. When I showed him mormonsandgays.org he just dismissed it as the church being tactful to get the lobbyists off their case.
Sigh!
Quick report from my corner of the world – I actually heard about the disavowal on this site, and have heard nothing about it anywhere else. Not a word about it at church today. Quote:Not a word about it at church today.
No unexpected. I’m sure no talk was assigned or lesson was planned about the ban.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:We’re not going to have a lesson on this in priesthood any time soon.
Actually, I lot of what’s being researched and published now is preparation for an overhaul of the adult manuals. It’s pointless to change the manuals before all of the historical documentation is completed – or at least enough to make a change mean a real change. I don’t know if we will have a specific lesson on the new explanation for the ban, but publishing it is part of the overall process.
I really hadn’t looked at it or thought about it that way, Ray. So I suppose it is possible that someday we could have a lesson on the topic. I’m going to be a Doubting Thomas, though, and believe when I see it.
Quote:Actually, I lot of what’s being researched and published now is preparation for an overhaul of the adult manuals. It’s pointless to change the manuals before all of the historical documentation is completed – or at least enough to make a change mean a real change. I don’t know if we will have a specific lesson on the new explanation for the ban, but publishing it is part of the overall process.
Ray, do you have any more info on the manual overhaul? This is the first I’ve heard of such a thing. Sounds interesting.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.