[Old-Timer]

It’s also worth considering that much of the messiest stuff that challenges faith came about in a time when the Church was led by the young and impetuous. Most members don’t stop and consider that.

[Old-Timer]

Sally, Pretty much everything I was thinking of saying Jordan already said.

My only re-emphasis:

Everything really is reconcilable, as long as you are willing to accept that the Church isn’t perfect (meaning both “free of mistakes” and the Biblical “complete, whole, fully developed”) and neither are any of the members – including leaders all the way to the Prophet. My faith now is stronger than the knowledge I thought I had earlier in my life, so I can tell you it’s worth it.

[Old-Timer]

cjonesy, there are at least two members of our ward who sit in Gospel Doctrine class and read the assigned chapters silently on their own during the lesson. In essence, they study the lesson during the lesson. For those who have a hard time with the general tone or regular comments in a class but want to attend, I really like this approach.

[Old-Timer]

“If i’m hearing you correct you are saying you see the hand of God in the current teachings but the membership (and you spread the blame around here to include all levels) are not ready to interpret them correctly.”

Not quite, but close. Just to be clear here in this thread, I think it would take a very direct and clear revelation on the magnitude of the Manifesto and OD 2 in order to make gay marriage acceptable in the Church, and I don’t see that happening in the near future. I see valid reasons for the current teachings (so I would have voted for Prop 8 if I had lived in CA), even as I hope we can find ways to engage actively gay members more in the Church. I think it would be possible without much change to our current covenant wording, but I don’t think it will happen without revelation. I might be wrong about that, but I’m fairly confident revelation would be necessary for any major change – and I’m not confident that “major change” is the will of God.

In a nutshell, I think a lot of things relative to this topic, but I know very little about the future of the topic.

[Old-Timer]

Thanks for the response, Salo. You actually highlighted some areas where, on re-reading, I wasn’t very clear.

1) I didn’t mean to make “membership” exclusive of “leadership”. I meant it to be inclusive of all levels of membership. I meant the Church as a whole isn’t ready.

2) I also think it would be a nightmare to be gay in the Church right now. That’s why I don’t condemn or judge those who leave – who can’t remain celibate. I’m not sure I could, so I am deeply grateful I didn’t have to try. I met my love early and married her early, so I never had to live that particular nightmare.

3) What I meant is that the actual covenants we make relative to the Law of Chastity don’t need to be tweaked to allow gay members in legally recognized marriages to attend the temple (even if they can’t be sealed therein) – and if civil unions were the law of the land, our current wording would allow gay members in those legal unions to be actively involved in local units (excepting certain callings) at the least – and there is NOTHING in our current church attendance policies that would deny gay members the ability to worship and study with us in any of our local meetings. I’m not saying it would happen right now in lots of local units or in the temple, but the wording doesn’t prohibit it automatically.

[Old-Timer]

Given how long my last comment was, I need to make this one much shorter. *grin*

I think it’s open and shut – that evolution is the process by which our bodies were created. The only part of the original post with which I disagree is the following:

Quote:

In the church we have the temple, genesis, BOM all teaching us Adam and Eve and I would say it is understood in church culture and doctrine to be literal.

I am old enough to state unequivocally that the temple presentation was constructed to be figurative regarding the creation of Adam and Eve. There used to be no question about that; now, it merely is neutral. However, I have a hard time arguing that anything presented in the temple is meant to be taken literally – and I mean that comprehensively.

I also have said on other threads that the official statement signed by the First Presidency in 1909 (“The Origin of Man” – reprinted in the February 2002 Ensign) about evolution merely emphasized that to be “human” is not to be nothing more than a smart animal – that it is to be the combination of a mortal body with a spirit child of God. It is critical to read that statement slowly and carefully and without pre-conceived notions, since when it is parsed carefully it went so far as to leave open the possibility that evolution was the genesis of our physical bodies. The actual summary quote that lays out that possibility is:

Quote:

True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.

(That last phrase – that I bolded – is fascinating, since it says that Adam MIGHT have originated as an embryo. Personally, that my belief – and I think it is supported by scripture and the temple and early Mormon perspective.)

That’s enough for now, but I believe strongly that much of what we assume is viewed as literal in the Church actually was originated as figurative (and viewed as such by MANY of the older members of the Church) – especially those things dealing with Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. I think there are good lessons that can be drawn from a literal viewpoint, but I think a large part of reconciliation with “The Church” in this area is recognizing that the figurative perspective used to be the mainstream view – and that it still is prevalent among many, many members and leaders. I think it’s only when God is removed from the process completely (“godless evolution”, as it was called in the early 1900’s statements) that it falls outside the acceptable limits of our doctrine.

(Ironically, as the Church spreads into other countries, the new members probably will be disproportionately those who currently do not believe in evolution. That will be very interesting to watch, imo.)

[Old-Timer]

I’ve said everywhere that I would support comprehensive civil unions (with exactly equal civil rights) regardless of sexual orientation, with “marriage” reserved as a religious word for churches to confer as they desire. If some churches want to perform gay marriages, so be it; if others don’t, so be it. I see that as the only option that provides equal protection under the law, while still allowing religions to “sanctify” marriage. I see this generally in Europe, with their implementation of civil unions. I also see this already on a very practical level in the Mormon Church – where Mormon/non-Mormon marriage has one of the highest divorce rates in the nation, the non-temple-marriage Mormon divorce rate essentially is average in the country, and the temple marriage divorce rate is the lowest in the nation by far. I think this is due largely to those marriages being “sanctified” in the eyes of those who are involved.

I also have said in many places that I see multiple, clear ways that gay members can be more active in the Church without having to forsake the current wording of our core covenants, but I don’t think the membership in general is ready for that. We’re getting closer and closer (slowly), but I don’t think we are close to being there yet.

As for the overall issue, I do think it is much more complicated than most people (on either side) consider. Sexuality and sexual orientation definitely are “hard-wired” for many, but every study I have seen over the decades indicates that it is soft-wired in a much larger percentage of the population than many people realize (and than either side wants to publicize). This means that there are lots of people who might lean toward either option, depending on what transpires in their lives. There also is almost a given in research that recognizes a significant portion of the lesbian population as influenced by previous abuse – that women, especially, fluctuate within the orientation spectrum more than men and end up much more likely to be bi-sexual than men.

Given the Church’s most recent alterations to its official statements regarding homosexuality, I’m fairly certain that the apostolic consensus recognizes those who are “hard-wired” as being unable to live the Law of Chastity as currently constituted – or, at the very least, that they recognize how brutally difficult and unrealistic it is to expect many homosexuals to live the Law of Chastity. Personally, I think that the stance on gay marriage legislation is focused as an attempt to keep social inhibitions in place that would discourage those who are more “soft-wired” from sexual experimentation and influence those who could end up sexually active as straight, bi-sexual or gay to “choose” heterosexual activity over the other alternatives. That is what I get from the statements of the Church leaders I have read, and I have tried to read them carefully and slowly. From that perspective, I understand and support the Church’s stance on the vote for Prop 8 – even if I reject completely most of the arguments I read for that vote. Most of them are just as applicable within the straight community, but nobody I know who argued them also would argue for the natural application of them to the heterosexual community. I don’t like hypocrisy, and far too many supporters of Prop 8 were fundamentally hypocritical in their justifications for their support. That left me willing to support Prop 8 in its most narrow application, but dismayed by the reasoning being given by most people around me. (If I had been required to vote based solely on those justifications, I would have voted No in a heartbeat – without hesitation. However, I have been intimately involved with homosexual friends since my college days [where most of my closest friends were gay], so I have had twenty years to think about this issue.)

My biggest problem right now is that we are aligned with those who have no problem with hyperbolic and vile arguments – who use horribly weak justifications – who condemn ALL active homosexuals (and, in some cases, even non-active homosexuals) to Hell – who truly are bigots and homophobes. We are aligned politically with many organizations who really do NOT “hate the sinner”, but we also are aligned with many others who actually DO “hate the sinner”. Even if we accept homosexual activity as “sin” (and, in many cases, I do not classify it that way), I am every bit as much of a sinner as most active homosexuals, and I know gay friends who live much more Christlike lives than I currently do. To be aligned politically on an issue like this with those who openly glory in visions of eternal damnation for others (including, in many cases, us) pains me deeply.

Finally, I am concerned that we don’t identify enough with all who are sexually active outside the bounds of our own Law of Chastity – heterosexual OR homosexual. I think we do way too much judging and not nearly enough loving, even in those cases where we can’t yet embrace a particular sexual action – again, heterosexual OR homosexual. I am much more concerned about our un-Christlike feelings and perspectives and reactions than to others’ beliefs and actions.

Fwiw, right after the Prop 8 vote, I wrote the following on my blog:

http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2008/11/proposition-8-and-presidency-week-of.html

[Old-Timer]

Well said, Valoel.

[Old-Timer]

That’s cool, Salo. I asked mostly because I have been about as vocal as anyone in my belief that the ban was primarily a product of racism. I just don’t think it was avoidable, and, as such, I don’t think it needs an “apology” – since I think the recent statements are very forceful and speak for themselves.

At the most fundamental level, I just don’t like the concept of apologizing for other people. That’s a personal quirk, and I certainly don’t think others are “wrong” to apologize. I just think if you open that door (apologizing for others), it quickly becomes a never-ending, all-consuming cycle – and generally turns divisive, ironically.

Anyway, I will wait for the PM. I am fine with discussing it further there.

[Old-Timer]

Quote:

“We don’t have to agree on all things but the excuses , rationalizations and philosophical reflections on this particular topic turn my stomach. It is against everything I stand for and I can not excuse the unexcusable.”

Salo, this is a sincere question, asked solely to try to understand. There is no anger or rancor in it.

Does this mean you believe that anyone who tries to understand the ban and why it was allowed to happen, chalks it up primarily to racism, but accepts the Church’s inability to issue an actual apology (since it simply might have been an unavoidable part of restoring the Gospel in the early 1800’s in America) – or who doesn’t think the examples of Nephite racism toward Lamanites should be conflated with the Priesthood ban (and, therefore, should not be the basis of an apology) – or who comes to a conclusion that is not “the Church needs to apologize for racist statements in the Book of Mormon” (for example, because they believe such statements are accurate examples of the Nephite’s racism) – that those who don’t see things the way you currently see them are “unexcusable”?

I mean that sincerely, since I’m trying to understand your focus. Do you see my comments here as “excuses, rationalizations and philosophical reflections” that “turn (your) stomach” and are “unexcusable”?

[Old-Timer]

As for the question about scriptural fallibility, I am as strong a proponent of that as lives on this planet. Take the Book of Mormon, for example.

If we parse it for what it actually claims, what is that? How would it be described best?

This is my take:

Quote:

The Book of Mormon claims to be a compilation of prophetic writings, with three primary authors – one of whom abridged most of the writings into his own words.

Nephi is the claimed author of the first two books, with a handful of other minor authors; Mormon is the author and abridger of most of the book; Moroni was the final author. What is overlooked by most people is that this arrangement leaves the perspective we get in the book in the hands almost entirely of these three men. Furthermore, Mormon plays a disproportionately large role, simply because he chose which “hundredth part” to pass on to us -meaning we have (figuratively) 1% of the actual record that was written and for which the prophets prayed to have preserved for later generations.

We have NO clue what Mormon left out. We have NO idea what social interactions they had that didn’t make the final cut. We know Mormon was a military general who saw the destruction of his people, so it would be naive to think that life played no role in his decisions regarding what to include and what to exclude. In fact, I believe that his position as prophet-abridger is exactly what resulted in the grand morality tale we have in the current version. The list of “issues” goes on and on and on and on – and that is if we start from a totally “faithful” and “believing” standpoint. Therefore, the best I believe we can say is that we have a book that the modern “translator” and the original authors/abridger thought was accurate and inspired and compiled explicitly so we could avoid what they could not avoid.

So, I am left with the freedom to read the entire book in context, apply my understanding of possible textual meanings and reach my own conclusions about what the book actually is teaching. The post I linked in my first comment includes an example of just such an effort – to see how “family” could start defining other “family members” based on skin tone (which consistently was called “dark”, not “black”). It also frees me to see how color descriptions were used in the OT to mean things entirely different than a literal skin color – how color can be employed symbolically, just as we still do to this day.

We say, “It’s black and white,” “I see a lot of gray,” “He looked at me darkly,” “black as sin,” “pure and white as freshly fallen snow,” etc. I try hard not to use terms like the last two anymore, but they are omnipresent in our society. They also were used freely in the OT, with the following being the most interesting:

Job 30:30 – “My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.”

Jeremiah 8:21 – “For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me.”

Jeremiah 14:2 – “Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up.”

Luke 11:36 – “If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.”

This is not as easy a topic as most people assume (on either side), especially given the obviously racist interpretations that dominated our modern history for too long. However, when you strip away all of that modern interpretation and go back to the actual source, I simply don’t think the passages “must” be read literally and with racist overtones outside of the actual conflict of the time. In other words, while I think the Book of Mormon statements regarding the Lamanite skin color are discriminatory and racist in nature (one part of a family justifying its opposition to another part of the family by focusing on skin pigmentation), I think they should have been totally irrelevant to the Priesthood ban – since I don’t think they apply at all to worthiness of one race to hold and exercise the authority of God. I think the Anti-Nephi-Lehis prove that without a doubt. In other words, I think those verses are misapplied in a discussion of the Priesthood ban.

[Old-Timer]

Salo, I honestly believe that there isn’t much more the Church could say that it hasn’t said already. Elder McConkie’s statement at BYU in 1978 (which I quoted in my first comment) is explicit and direct. Pres. Hinckley’s condemnation of racial slurs in April 2006 General Conference (saying nobody who uses them is worthy of the priesthood) couldn’t have been stronger.

Perhaps the Church could excise its records of racist statements, but if it did that the critics would accuse it of whitewashing and trying to cover up its past. All it can do is not make such statements and condemn them in the here and now – and it has done that.

Finally, although I am free to speculate about my perception of the ban, apostles and prophets are not. I hope they learned from earlier examples what happens when they speak publicly and express personal speculation. They just can’t do that as freely as they used to. Therefore, they can’t guess publicly about exactly why the ban occurred and lasted as long as it did, as you and I can. All they can say is that the justifications were wrong (and they have done that), that those who instituted and continued the ban were wrong in why they did it (and they have done that) and that we cannot perpetuate those justifications and the slurs that can accompany them (and they have done that). All they can do is make sure black members can lead mixed-race congregations (and they have done that – better, ironically, than many or most other Christian denominations), more black leaders are called into high priesthood positions (and they are doing that), black members are able to represent the Lord in the temple (and they have done that), etc. We still have a long way to go, but I think the distance is not as vast as some people assume – especially in comparison to many other Christian denominations. (That’s a perspective that gets lost in most discussions of this issue.)

The Church is nowhere close to blameless on this, but I just don’t see a lot more it can do that it isn’t doing or trying to do.

[Old-Timer]

I’m running out the door in about 2 minutes to date my wife, so I only have time now for this:

Quote:

I find it interesting that you would admit that our prophets can be fallible but not concede that our sacred books written by prophets can be.

I have never taken that position. I have said many time in many places that we get our scriptures through the biased perspectives of men – even though we accept them as prophets.

More later.

[Old-Timer]

Can you love them and help them learn to love each other and others?

Also, have you asked your Bishop point-blank and sincerely if he believes you were called by inspiration or desperation or assumption?

I don’t have any advice on this one, Mike. Whatever you decide, however, don’t run away from a chance to learn that the Church isn’t about you. OFTEN, the person who is called into a position isn’t the perfect person for the calling; often they are the only person, faults and doubts and difficulties notwithstanding. I know my wife stressed out regularly as the YW President, but I also know in hindsight that nobody else in our ward could have reached three of the YW – and all of her stress was worth saving those three girls.

[Old-Timer]

The best one, in my opinion, is D&C 46:13-14:

Quote:

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

If something as basic as a knowledge that Jesus is the Son of God is not available universally, then I think there isn’t much that is available universally – and that we should be totally accepting of those to whom it is given to believe (to whatever small or large degree they are given to believe).

[Author]

Posts