Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
Again, I have serious issues with how homosexuals are treated in the Church overall – but we simply have to let go of the unrealistic expectations many have with this particular topic. spacious maze and I see many things very differently, but we both understand the enormous shift this would be. Frankly, it is HUGELY different than polygamy and the priesthood ban, and it would take revelation of the clearest, highest order to “integrate homosexuals fully” into the Church and our understanding of the Gospel. “Fully” is the operative word; “more fully” is possible – and “more fully” is all for which I can hope reasonably right now.
Expecting full integration any time soon simply is unrealistic, imo – unless specific revelation is received, and I don’t think the root of the tree is strong enough right now to handle that type of pruning, even if it were God’s will. I’m just not sure it even is His will (the “fully” aspect).
I have to agree with MadamCurie (although I admit that I’m biased,
😆 ).MadamCurie wrote:I really don’t see how their change in their stance on polygamy differs that much from a change in position on homosexuality. Once the Church taught that polygamy was absolutely required for entrance into the CK, using history, revelation, and scripture to support it. Now they ex people for doing it.
Doctrinally, it really isn’t that different from the beliefs taught as
DOCTRINEin the early LDS church on polygamy and blacks with the priesthood. I think polygamy and blacks obtaining the priesthood indicate exactly what circumstances need to take place before God will “reveal” to his Prophets that homosexuals should be fully accepted into the church, (1) the vast majority of other Christian churches must fully accept homosexuals, (2) the church needs to be getting bad publicity on the matter, (3) economic sanctions by the government will probably need to be threatened if they do not change their policies. These are precisely the things that happened before polygamy was abandoned and before blacks received the priesthood.
I think these same conditions will need to be met before women get the priesthood.
So I spoke to my fairly orthodox Jewish co-worker today about this. She agreed with HiJolly: HiJolly wrote:Anything ‘unclean’ due to illness, sin, contact with the dead, menstruation, etc. needed purification via the mikva.
She thought that John the Baptist’s “baptism” of Christ definately sounded like a mikva. The mikva is also used to indicate a new direction (such as at conversion, etc.).
I also like what mormonheretic mentioned:
mormonheretic wrote:This may not be an orthodox response, but here goes. I watched a documentary a few years ago called
The First Christians. In it, former Catholic priest and now bigwig with The Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan, stated that the baptism of Jesus is somewhat of an embarrassment in the gospels and that the writers of the gospels had to explain how Jesus was really greater when (at the time of his baptism), it appeared John was greater. Now, I don’t know if I agree with this line of thinking, but it is an interesting line of thought. Of course you know that John was from the tribe of Levi, so he did hold the proper priesthood authority. Christ came from the tribe of Judah, and if he were fulfilling all righteousness, then there must have been a need to be baptized by proper authority. Nonetheless, it does seem to appear that Jesus could have been a follower of John rather than the other way around. After Christ’s death, it seems that followers of Christ wanted to come up with a way to distinguish themselves from ordinary Jews. It could have been that ordinances such as baptism and the Last Supper were instituted as part of process to distinguish Christians from Jews, because during these early days, there really was no distinction. While it is evident that Christ called 12 apostles, his church really was not really organized at his death and resurrection. As such, when the gospel writers were looking back on certain events such as baptism and the sacrament, they may have been instituted as uniquely Christian ordinances. I know Crossan seems to think that some of the dialogue between Jesus and John was invented to serve this purpose.
I have been reading a little bit about the historicity of Jesus and the more I read, the more likely is seems that many of the traditional Christian elements we read in the New Testament were likely added after Christ’s death and can’t be attributed to Christ himself (virgin birth, King Herod’s infanticide, moving to Egypt, new star in the heavens) and were probably included to try to Diefy and increase his status as a martyr for the new converts and spreading the gospel. I can believe that the apostles adjusted a traditional mikva experience to become their new ordinance of baptism. It actually makes a lot of sense, just like the whitewashing the LDS church has done to make it’s history clean and faith-promoting, the early Chrisitians may have whitewashed and revised their own history to make it faith-promoting. In fact, the book argues that the crucifixion was probably an actual event because the crucifixion was so counter-intuitive to what the Jews expected of the Messiah, but the Apostles may have added the doctrine of the resurrection to be able to explain that their Messiah wasn’t really gone and would be back soon to save them.
My Jewish co-worker also suggested that the last supper may have been traditional observance of the Shabbat. According to Wikipedia this is:
Wikipedia wrote:
The evening meal begins with the Kiddush, a blessing recited aloud over a cup of wine, and the Mohtzi, a blessing recited over the bread.
These types of historical parallelisms increase my belief that the historical Jesus really had very little to do with founding Christianity and that it was much more due to his followers after his death. Of course, this introduces more historicity problems into the Book of Mormon and what Christ was doing implementing traditional Chrisitian ordinances that wouldn’t be implemented until years later by his followers, as well as Mormon doctrine problems with promoting the belief that Christian ordinances are Eternal ordinances taught to Adam and all prophets throughout the history of the world. I’m inclined to go with history on this one . . .
HiJolly wrote:
I’ll be spending some time downtown this week and weekend — I think I’ll drop by the Church History Library on Thursday. Maybe they’ll have something.HiJolly
That would be great if you could check out the Church History Library. I don’t really have access to that stuff in the area of the country I am in. . .
Heber13 wrote:That is interesting. I think the note that a committee and some leaders still provide oversight and make some changes occasionally is still acceptable to many that revelation is used. However, this isn’t the way it is explained, which could lead to some missionaries feeling “lied to” about revelation.
In thinking about it, it makes a lot of sense to use a computer. With so many mission calls to make and over 300 missions to make sure are continuously staffed with missionaries who are also constantly leaving every 4-6 weeks, etc., it would probably be a nearly impossible job without a computer. It is also consistent with the church’s change in rhetoric, stating that a person is “called to be a missionary of Jesus Christ, and
assignedto a mission.” I think people would think about mission calls differently, however, if they knew they were assigned to their missions by a computer. Finding out their mission was assigned by a computer is like finding out that your new name in the temple is simply the assigned name of the day, rather than some inspired name pronounced with great personal meaning (such as your name in the pre-existence), and that all your friends and family that came with you that day, to whom you are commanded to never reveal your new name, already know it. Bruce in Montana wrote:He says such things as “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.
This is an example of “theocratic ethics” and something that I have come to find very disturbing since my disaffection. I find it frightening that someone can claim God told them something was right so they can perform acts that would normally be wrong (we find examples of this in Nephi with Laban, Old testament genocide, the catholic crusades, Muslim Jihad, JS and early phophets with polygamy, the church’s whitewashing (lying) about church history).
That said, I don’t think the church is the source of ultimate truth (although it is a good church and the leaders are trying) and so it is perfectly reasonable to obtain answerrs to prayer against church teachings. I think it is important to obey your personal answers to prayer, but we should be especially careful if that answer is against generally accepted societal norms (murder, stealing, lying, etc.) I think it is entirely too difficult to definitively distinguish between our own desires and personal revelation at times. I also think too many evil deads have been done in the name of Diety.
So, after reading RSR and OoP I have returned to this verse with some new insight. (D&C 132:19)
Quote:19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and
it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. This verse, as originally intended, is refering to polygamy, but beyond that, it is specifically requiring the second annointing for these promises to be of force. It specifically states that it
must be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise by him who is annointed, this is the second annointing, a secret ordinance still performed in temples (I was specifically taught in my BYU religion class that 2nd annointings are still performed, and this by a member of the correlation committee who was my New Testmant course teacher). Without the 2nd annointing ordinances, none of these promises are valid. While I used to think the 2nd annointing sounded awesome, I now find it highly disturbing. The 2nd annointing is performed when you have “passed” the test of mortality and will no longer have to stand before the judgement bar of God. You can commit any sin and still become a God, except murder. This just does not seem like something God would institute. What happened to enduring to the end? Additionally, from what I have been able to find, it looks like you actually come to the attention of the 1st presidency as being eligible for your 2nd annointing when you are nominated for it by someone else who has received their 2nd annointing. Where is God’s judgement in this? Man looks on the outward appearance, rather than on the heart. The “Holy Spirit of Promise” is not some metaphysical stamp of approval by the Holy Ghost as I have been taught in the church, this is specifically the 2nd annointing ordinance. Similarly, obtaining exhaltation through a monogamous temple marriage is not what JS and early prophets taught. There are some explicit quotes out there that only polygamous marriages will bring you exhaltation (do I hear Bruce clapping approval?). The current church teachings are in conflict with the “original intent” of the chapter and are a “repackaging” of the original doctrine. Anyways, my reading of the rest of D&C 132 is that this is primarily a way Joseph attempting to guilt/command Emma into accepting his polygamous wives.
Bruce, I appreciate your dissenting opinions and you raise a good point that we need to be aware of the agenda and biases of the historian/author. I think Quinn clearly overreaches at points and his precise selection of evidence and its arrangement is clearly designed to lead the reader toward his own conclusions. However, I do not find the Collier refutations convincing and think that Collier exposes his own biases more than he exposes Quinn’s.
Chapter 4: The Kingdom of God in Nauvoo, Illinois Another disturbing chapter by Quinn, the content of which was given very light treatment in RSR. This chapter covers many of the church developments that would later serve to help splinter the church into various factions. I found the theocratic ethics very disturbing, where “that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. . . Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is.” The most disturbing aspect being that we must accept that one person says it is the will of God. As I thought about theocratic ethics, I realized it is thoroughly integrated into our church, from Nephi killing Laban (why could God just have Laban choke on an olive in his martini so that Nephi didn’t have to kill him and wouldn’t have gotten blood all over his nice clothes?) and lying to steal the plates, to JS and 19th century (and early 20th century) prophets on polygamy, to “lying for the Lord” while whitewashing church history today all the way up to Pres. Hinckley lying in his media interviews regarding doctrines of the church. Even more disturbing than JS using this doctrine to coerce women to marry him is that our current leaders still exemplify this principle. Could they honestly get a TR? Freemasonry and Mormonism was also discussed. This topic was mostly disturbing to me due to a Dialogue article I read on Masonry and Mormonism (
http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=17325&REC=5 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=17325&REC=5 Chapter 5: The 1844 Succession Crisis and the Twelve
A fascinating treatment of the succession crisis and all of the separate succession claims with the evidence supporting each. Quinn does a remarkable job illustrating the confusion reigning in the church after the martyrdom. JS definately did not make it obvious as to who was to take over, despite current claims by the church to the contrary (history obviously written by the victors). I particularly found it fascinating as Quinn described the competing factions for and against the secret developments in Nauvoo. lthough it was interesting that many of those initially against the “secret” developments eventually introduced polygamy into their respective factions of the church. Brigham Young is definately portrayed as a ruthless, power-grabbing leader. Of course, given his documented racist and sexist statements, this portrayal isn’t too shocking. My impression is that Quinn does not like BY very much.
Chapter 6: Other Succession Options
More succession options are discussed by Quinn. I was particularly interested to hear the claims by the RLDS church and was not disappointed. The claims for David Hyrum to become prophet were compelling, particularly given JS prophesies for David. However, it appears that these prophesies belonged with many of JS other prophesies that ultimately were never fulfilled.
Chapter 7: The Nature of Apostolic Succession
A fascinating discussion of how the LDS church came to have the senior apostle become president of the church, as well as an interesting treatment of rare situations when the Quorum almost didn’t follow this precedent. This chapter was particularly interesting as it moved toward more recent developments and prophets that I am more personally familiar with. This chapter serves as an effective “hook” into the 2nd volume of the work, which will deal with more modern aspects of the church. I can’t wait to get started . . .
MWallace, What is the evidence that men with damaged Y chromosomes become gay? I have never heard this before. This sounds like pseudoscience. Please provide a peer-reviewed reference for this theory.
I would also recommend the faceseast.org forum to your wife. It is a very supportive environment for believing spouses of disaffected mormons. Their focus is on how to build a strong marriage despite differing belief systems. Rix wrote:I see this issue as the next “blacks and the priesthood” transition
Agreed. However, I’m not sure the church sees it that way . . .
Old-Timer wrote:MadamCurie, that’s precisely what I was saying.
Perhaps, in time, the church could also be persuaded to acknowledge homosexual civil marriage, even if it does not allow them within temples.
Here are my impressions from the first three chapters. I am going to do lots of comparisons to RSR, probably because I just finished, but also because I think that having read RSR is a huge plus when reading Quinn because it allows the reader to place much of Quinn’s evidence into the context of the historical narrative. Quinn covers each topic roughly in chronological order, but it is useful to understand everything else that is also happening at the same time, which is where Bushman’s book comes in handy. Chapter 1: The Evolution of Authority
As I stated above, the facts presented in this chapter are largely consistent with those presented by Bushman in RSR. I think Quinn does an excellent job presenting the evolving views of the church hierarchy/authority from the viewpoint of the average member, which allows Quinn to present the actual changes JS made to revelations and the evolving history of priesthood restoration without making a judgement on whether JS was doing it due to an evolving understanding of God’s revelation as Bushman suggests or due to impure plans to consolidate power. The chapter forcefully disabuses the reader of any notion that God restored his church in its perfection from the beginning, as largely taught by the church currently.
Chapter 2: The First Five Presiding Priesthood Quorums
This chapter is somewhat more in depth regarding the structure and history of the church hierarchy than Bushman’s narrative in RSR, which largely focuses on JS, rather than the church. I think that Quinn again artfully disabuses the reader of the notion that the organization of the church was given by God in its entirety and perfection from the beginning. I did not sense that Quinn feels the history of the church hierarchy negates its inspiration. The chapter also helps to explain the confusion in the church after the martyrdom of JS as to how succession should occur.
Chapter 3: Theocratic Beginnings
Bushman’s RSR was particularly useful for this chapter to put the events presented into a larger narrative. However, I also noticed that this chapter really highlghts Bushman’s light treatment of some of the difficult aspects of church history, particularly the Danites. Many of the facts Quinn presents are quite disturbing, but he does given even treatment to both the atrocities of the Mormons and the mobs. I felt that Quinn’s presentation of the facts was a little heavy-handed here in supporting his thesis of the church’s early embrace of theocracy. It almost feels like he is trying to say that the concept of theocracy is ingrained in the church and that modern Mormons maintain a military mindset and are still interested in governmental overthrow (at least that was my impression). Several times while reading the chapter I got a better understanding of the fear JS and the church had of the return of the mobs once they settled in Nauvoo as presented by Bushman.
We had Stake Conference today, so I had the whole afternoon to read. I got through the first three chapters. My impressions have differed somewhat from yours Bill.
Bill Atkinson wrote:There seems to be a few underlying assumptions: 1) that if God was actually organizing a church He should have done it all at once, in perfect form, instead of the halting, messy, and confusing way it did get developed, “line up line and precept upon precpt” is not something Quinn wants to take account of.
I do not think that Quinn makes the assumption that the church should have been revealed from God in its perfection in one stroke. On the contrary, I feel that the church presents its history as if God revealed His church in its perfection, but Quinn forcefully disabused the reader of that notion. I did not sense any particular sense of disbelief in the truth of the Church from Quinn. In fact, in the Introduction, he states:
Quinn wrote:For most Mormons this book should be informative without being disturbing . . . I that the devout will maintain faith in a dynamic religion whose leaders may be more human than previously understood.
Bill Atkinson wrote:2) that Joseph fairly consistently altered his own history and information to match new situations and understandings in a very conscious way, hoping to fool all of us
Again, I did not detect a sense from Quinn that he thought JS was trying to fool us all. The facts are essentially the same as those reported by Bushman in RSR, however Bushman provides the possible explanation to the changes that JS was simply constantly receiving further inspiration on the subject and so went back to the old revelations to clarify points that he himself had never understood. In fact, Bushman clearly suggests that JS chose his own words for the revelations to describe the visions/ideas God was giving him (even though JS had them written as if God himself had given him the exact phrasing), but that as JS better understood the revelations the appropriate wording changed.
The differences I find between Bushman and Quinn seem to be largly a matter of style, rather than content. Bushman’s book is a narrative, which allows him to present a story with background information and context. Bushman also frequently provides the reader with a possible explanation that is faith promoting. Quinn, on the other hand, is presenting an analysis of the origins of hierarchy in the church and so he presents a series of facts without a great deal of narrative. Quinn clearly selects and presents his facts in a way that supports his thesis/conclusions, but without directly stating what conclusion the reader should draw from the facts. I also feel that Quinn is careful to present the facts that are somewhat at odds with his thesis as well. I think that having read RSR is a huge plus when reading Quinn because it allows the reader to place much of Quinn’s evidence into the context of the historical narrative. I like the Quinn does not seem to hide or downplay the facts, as Bushman does at times. On the other hand, some of Quinn’s facts are actually less positively presented in RSR than in OoP. For example, Quinn states on page 82:
Quinn wrote:Up to this time the Mormons had not so much as lifted a finger, even in their own defence . . .They were following the non-violent example of their prophet . . . One night in March 1832 a mob in Hiram, Ohio, broke into the home of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, dragged them from their beds, attempted to poison Smith, beat both unconscious, then tarred-and-feathered them. . . Smith preached the next day to a congregation which included several of his attackers, and he sought no retribution.
However, Bushman suggests that this attack may not have been as unprovoked as Quinn makes it sound, the mob appeared to be responding to rumors of unwanted sexual advances of JS. In fact, the mob brought along a doctor to castrate JS.
