Storm over the Mormons - for Non-Mormons

[Magic Man]

What about clearing the temple?

I don't know about 9/10ths, but as I said before, it always seemed to me that that was an example of his humanity, one of the very few times he actually showed he was human.

 

[Watchmen]

I don't know about 9/10ths, but as I said before, it always seemed to me that that was an example of his humanity, one of the very few times he actually showed he was human.

And your interpretation of Christianity as applied is not our interepretation. As DeepShadow already explained, you might apply a dichtomic interpretation, but there is no such dichotomy in the Mormon interpretation.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Funny, that's exactly what I tried to point out to our critics: confirmation bias. They are looking at all the times that public pressure changed the church, and failing to notice the times that it didn't work.

Fair enough but I suppose it all depends on what question you are trying to address. If the question is: "Overall, is the LDS Church good or bad?" then of course we have to consider everything, the good and the bad. If the question is more like, "Are LDS Church authorities and pronouncements always reliable and sound sources of wisdom?" we only need to find some examples where it is/was not.

I can be fair, though: Spinkles, what do you think we're missing?

For example, searching the word 'homosexual' at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints brings up the following information:

"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

"We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

• "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction" Jeffrey R. Holland, Liahona, Oct. 2007, 40–43; or Ensign, Oct. 2007, 42–45
  You have a loved one or friend who struggles with same-gender attraction and asks for your help. What do you say? What can you do?
• "Compassion for Those Who Struggle" Ensign, Sept. 2004, 58–62
  Friendship and compassion can strengthen those dealing with same-sex attraction.
• "My Battle with Same-Sex Attraction" Ensign, Aug. 2002, 48–51
  I was certain Heavenly Father had given up on me. How wrong I was!
• "When a Loved One Struggles with Same-Sex Attraction" A. Dean Byrd, Ensign, Sept. 1999, 51–55
  Families and friends can reach out to those with homosexual difficulties by relying on accurate information and on guidance from the Lord's prophets. There is no struggle for which the Atonement is not sufficient.
• "Same-Gender Attraction" Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, Oct. 1995, 7–14
  God created us male and female. What we call gender was an essential characteristic of our existence prior to our birth.

etc.....
​

I don't fault the LDS Church for its lack of material on homosexuality (say); I fault it for its wealth of counter-productive, ignorant, demeaning, and frankly stupid material on the subject. I'm not saying the LDS Church stands out in this regard on the American religious landscape, but that's my frank opinion.

"Compassion for those who struggle..." imagine a literature about "those who struggle" with Mormonism, how Mormonism is giving in to Satan's temptations, how the only way to be fulfilled in the afterlife is by rejecting Mormonism, etc., etc.

"God created us male and female..." go tell that to the children born with all sorts of sexual/gender disorders. If there is a God he created us male, female, and everything in between.

"Guidance from the Lord's prophets"....those old, white men and their minions have been a generation behind real moral progress since at least 50 years ago (like most old, white men in America) when they were fear-mongering about how the "black activists" don't really want legal equality, but social acceptance and interracial marriage, and imposing their beliefs and violating our religious freedoms. History repeats itself because people follow "the Lord's prophets".

 

[DadBurnett]

Mr Sprinkles ... I deeply respect your opinion and perspective. As an ex-Mormon I want to add a comment about "faulting the church." The core problem in discussing the teachings and practices of The Church is the fundamental assertion that The Church is OF God and to fault the church is to directly fault God ... and that's a huge no-no in The Church. Therefor, no one except God can change the teachings of God espoused by "His" Church. One cannot engage in a debate with The Church anymore that onde can effectively debate God.
That's why such arguments with Mormon leaders must, of necessity, fall on deaf ears. Individuals may question and disagree, but they do so (according to The Church) at some risk to their "degree of salvation" (heaven;ly reward).

 

[Magic Man]

And your interpretation of Christianity as applied is not our interepretation. As DeepShadow already explained, you might apply a dichtomic interpretation, but there is no such dichotomy in the Mormon interpretation.

I understand. That's why we have a disagreement in the first place. However, that aside, I still fail to see why it's necessary sometimes. I can see killing, obviously, and some other things, but polygamy? I still haven't seen the numbers saying it was ever close to necessary for reproduction.

 

[Watchmen]

I understand. That's why we have a disagreement in the first place. However, that aside, I still fail to see why it's necessary sometimes. I can see killing, obviously, and some other things, but polygamy? I still haven't seen the numbers saying it was ever close to necessary for reproduction.

And that's but one argument.

In the end, it simply could be a matter of God says so.

 

[Autodidact]

And that's but one argument.

In the end, it simply could be a matter of God says so.

But the Church is often mistaken in its statements about what God says, is it not? As for example in the example of the ban on Black priesthood?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about clearing the temple?

I can see a few ways of looking at it:

- There's a contradiction. It's an example of "do what I say, not what I do."

- Jesus' message is that humans don't have to worry about their needs or struggle to meet them (including violently), because these should be left to God. Jesus is God, so this doesn't apply to him; for Jesus, "leaving things to God" means handling them himself.

- Jesus' message is to base your actions on love for others and for God. Jesus' had two choices: 1. Leave the moneychangers alone to lead people astray spiritually. 2. Throw them out somewhat violently. Option 2 was more loving on the whole... though I know this introduces all sorts of "the ends justify the means" arguments that probably undermine my position.

Anyhow, the second point I mentioned still leaves open the idea that violence isn't something that we mortal humans should be involved in.

 

[Magic Man]

And that's but one argument.

In the end, it simply could be a matter of God says so.

Right, but the question is why God says so.

 

[DeepShadow]

I can see a few ways of looking at it:

- There's a contradiction. It's an example of "do what I say, not what I do."

- Jesus' message is that humans don't have to worry about their needs or struggle to meet them (including violently), because these should be left to God. Jesus is God, so this doesn't apply to him; for Jesus, "leaving things to God" means handling them himself.

- Jesus' message is to base your actions on love for others and for God. Jesus' had two choices: 1. Leave the moneychangers alone to lead people astray spiritually. 2. Throw them out somewhat violently. Option 2 was more loving on the whole... though I know this introduces all sorts of "the ends justify the means" arguments that probably undermine my position.

Anyhow, the second point I mentioned still leaves open the idea that violence isn't something that we mortal humans should be involved in.

Those are your interpretations. We have our own. Mball has his. The point is, Mball is never going to get anywhere telling us why he believes X. He's got to place himself on our side of the argument, find out what we believe, and argue why WE should believe X. That's the only way to move a debate forward.

 

[DeepShadow]

Right, but the question is why God says so.

You know, in all my experiences with revelation, the why is the part that is rarely given, and most commonly assumed/misinterpreted. Most of the time, God tells me to do something, and I do it, and it turns out well.

God told me to move to Florida. I assumed it was so I could live with my in-laws while I went to university--they had offered free room, free board, free babysitting. It sounded great. We got here, and that lasted just over a year before they got a divorce and we had to move out. But a bunch of other things happened that I never would have predicted.

God told me to start my papers for the university in the Spring, before I had a job. Seemed the exact wrong thing to do. I asked, "why" and got no answer. Turned out to be the PERFECT thing to do--it ended up getting me TWO jobs.

It's the same thing with the church in general. The 1978 revocation of the priesthood ban is a great example, because all sorts of people had been trying to fill in the WHY on the ban, and it turned out they were 100% wrong.

God speaks to me, and I listen. I stopped asking for the why.

 

[Magic Man]

You know, in all my experiences with revelation, the why is the part that is rarely given, and most commonly assumed/misinterpreted. Most of the time, God tells me to do something, and I do it, and it turns out well.

God told me to move to Florida. I assumed it was so I could live with my in-laws while I went to university--they had offered free room, free board, free babysitting. It sounded great. We got here, and that lasted just over a year before they got a divorce and we had to move out. But a bunch of other things happened that I never would have predicted.

God told me to start my papers for the university in the Spring, before I had a job. Seemed the exact wrong thing to do. I asked, "why" and got no answer. Turned out to be the PERFECT thing to do--it ended up getting me TWO jobs.

It's the same thing with the church in general. The 1978 revocation of the priesthood ban is a great example, because all sorts of people had been trying to fill in the WHY on the ban, and it turned out they were 100% wrong.

God speaks to me, and I listen. I stopped asking for the why.

I understand. The point, though, is why God would say polygamy is wrong, but it's OK only for this period of time.

 

[DeepShadow]

I understand. The point, though, is why God would say polygamy is wrong, but it's OK only for this period of time.

Sure, so are you prepared to get on our side of the issue?

The point is, Mball is never going to get anywhere telling us why he believes X. He's got to place himself on our side of the argument, find out what we believe, and argue why WE should believe X. That's the only way to move a debate forward.

Here's the doctrine that comes closest to "why." It at least explains that polygamy can be a conditional commandment, allowed at some times but not others:

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm guessing that's from the BoM, which explains why it makes no sense to me. What do you think it is driving at?

 

[Magic Man]

Sure, so are you prepared to get on our side of the issue?

I'd love to understand your side.

Here's the doctrine that comes closest to "why." It at least explains that polygamy can be a conditional commandment, allowed at some times but not others:

I appreciate that. It does help to explain things. But that brings up an even better question. That passage says that polygamy is an abomination, right? Kind of like how the OT says that homosexuality is an abomination. It seems they're put on equal terms in that way. It seems extremely odd to me that God would ever consider an abomination to be OK. I would think if something was an abomination, it would always be so.

 

[DeepShadow]

Well, it says that this commandment (monogamy) would be the case unless the Lord decided to "raise up seed unto me." This would suggest it is primarily for reproductive purposes.

 

[Autodidact]

Well according to mainstream Christians, all of the Leviticus "abominations" got vetoed by Jesus (except possibly the one about men laying with men, for some reason.) "Abomination" is probably not the best translation. They're basically ancient purity taboos about what not to eat and who not to have sex with.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, it says that this commandment (monogamy) would be the case unless the Lord decided to "raise up seed unto me." This would suggest it is primarily for reproductive purposes.

If for example you had twice as many women as men, then you would get more babies if each man had two wives? But was that the case? Was the ratio of Mormon males to females different in the 19th century than the 20th?

 

[DeepShadow]

It seems extremely odd to me that God would ever consider an abomination to be OK. I would think if something was an abomination, it would always be so.

Which only confirms that you prefer to think in dichotomies--you'd make a good scientist. Problem is, life is full of "necessary evils." Apparently God sometimes considers polygamy a necessary abomination.

 

[DeepShadow]

If for example you had twice as many women as men, then you would get more babies if each man had two wives? But was that the case? Was the ratio of Mormon males to females different in the 19th century than the 20th?

Well, I've heard that the mobs in Missouri and earlier preferred to kill men, in part because women weren't allowed to own property at the time, so they could kill the men and take what they wanted. I'll poke around a little. It shouldn't be too hard to confirm this, as many of their boasts were recorded in county registers.