Storm over the Mormons - for Non-Mormons

[Magic Man]

It's NOT a coincidence. It's a correlation. You are assigning causation. I could do the same thing by saying that we should buy TV's for people in certain third-world contries to help them control overpopulation, because in those countries, having a TV is strongly correlated with fewer kids. It's never a coincidence that two things follow each other this way, up and down and up again. It's a correlation without a known causation.

OTOH, it's also "coincidental" that the church has (repeatedly) taken a stand on things that turned out to be...wrong. Not that many years ago, when repressed memories were all the rage, the church tood a very firm stand against therapies that dredged up previous abuse. Critics had a field day, portraying the church as flying in the face of science/mental health and even going so far as to say the church was part of a coverup. That time, society found out the hard way that repressed memories were not what they appeared to be, and the church's advice on the matter turned out to be well ahead of its time.

Picking only the times the church changed is one-sided. Leaving aside revelation, it could be said that the church tends to insulate against social change. When changes turn out to be bad, such insulation can be a good thing. When changes turn out to be necessary, the church eventually comes around.

I think you're looking a little too far into this. The point is when something the church teaches is determined to be wrong by the rest of the country, amazingly, the church has a revelation that said teaching is all of a sudden dismissed. It's quite convenient, that.

Also, what is this you're saying about repressed memories? When was that determined to be BS, and why wasn't I informed, and especially why weren't my mother and wife informed since one works as a psychologist and the other is studying psychology?

Anyway, the point is it doesn't matter how many times the church goes against something and is proven right. The point is, whenever they go against something and the rest of the country goes against them, they suddenly decide, by revelation, to change their minds.

 

[DeepShadow]

I think you're looking a little too far into this. The point is when something the church teaches is determined to be wrong by the rest of the country, amazingly, the church has a revelation that said teaching is all of a sudden dismissed. It's quite convenient, that.

Okay, I suppose it's "convenient" that our church adapts to changing times. But your use of the word "convenient" suggests you find this contradictory with revelation. Is that the case?

Also, what is this you're saying about repressed memories? When was that determined to be BS, and why wasn't I informed, and especially why weren't my mother and wife informed since one works as a psychologist and the other is studying psychology?

I'm getting my masters in psych right now. Repressed memories are not "BS," but they are suspect because they are easily reconstructed, sometimes from whole cloth. The church's advice was not to try to dredge up memories that were not clear, and that same advice is now given in every psych book on my shelf that covers the topic. If you want to start a thread on it, be my guest, but you might want to google Elizabeth Loftus first.

Anyway, the point is it doesn't matter how many times the church goes against something and is proven right. The point is, whenever they go against something and the rest of the country goes against them, they suddenly decide, by revelation, to change their minds.

And isn't it possible that the changing opinions of the world allows the revelation to take place? That it was not safe for X behavior before, but now that the social world has changed, X is safe? I've long argued--here and elsewhere--that one of the probably precipitants of the Kimball revelation was that too many members of our church were, in fact, racist before Kimball. After the members came to their senses, the Lord decided we were ready to change our policies.

 

[Magic Man]

Okay, I suppose it's "convenient" that our church adapts to changing times. But your use of the word "convenient" suggests you find this contradictory with revelation. Is that the case?

I find that the revelation is probably due to the convenience of it.

I'm getting my masters in psych right now. Repressed memories are not "BS," but they are suspect because they are easily reconstructed, sometimes from whole cloth. The church's advice was not to try to dredge up memories that were not clear, and that same advice is now given in every psych book on my shelf that covers the topic. If you want to start a thread on it, be my guest, but you might want to google Elizabeth Loftus first.

When were scientists advocating against what the church was saying? I thought it had always been clear to everyone that repressed memories should be approached with caution. It's not like it's rocket science.

And isn't it possible that the changing opinions of the world allows the revelation to take place? That it was not safe for X behavior before, but now that the social world has changed, X is safe? I've long argued--here and elsewhere--that one of the probably precipitants of the Kimball revelation was that too many members of our church were, in fact, racist before Kimball. After the members came to their senses, the Lord decided we were ready to change our policies.

But why would there have been the first teaching, then? I thought the revelations and teachings through the prophet were the word of God. If so, why would God make one revelation, and then contradict it later?

 

[Katzpur]

But why would there have been the first teaching, then? I thought the revelations and teachings through the prophet were the word of God. If so, why would God make one revelation, and then contradict it later?

The "first teaching," in my opinion, cannot be supported by the Standards Works (i.e. the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price). Others may and have disagreed with me, but I don't believe the ban was ever mandated by God. In other words, it was not a matter of doctrine but of policy. Lifting of the ban, however, was by revelation. It changed a policy which had been in effect for well over 100 years to be in line with the eternal truth that God is not a respecter of persons.

 

[DeepShadow]

But why would there have been the first teaching, then? I thought the revelations and teachings through the prophet were the word of God. If so, why would God make one revelation, and then contradict it later?

You're assuming that God's word cannot be targeted at a particular time and place. He told Noah and family to get into a boat, because the time and place necessitated it. This commandment only applied to that time, that place, and those people. It's not a contradiction to tell Noah's kids something else.

Moreover, we know that many commandments are based upon principles that have multiple parts. For example, the Book of Mormon forbids polygamy, but mentions circumstances under which that ban might be temporarily lifted.

 

[Magic Man]

You're assuming that God's word cannot be targeted at a particular time and place. He told Noah and family to get into a boat, because the time and place necessitated it. This commandment only applied to that time, that place, and those people. It's not a contradiction to tell Noah's kids something else.

That's quite a weird analogy. That was a specific command for a very specific situation. What would change about the world that would make homosexuality or gay marriage suddenly acceptable?

Moreover, we know that many commandments are based upon principles that have multiple parts. For example, the Book of Mormon forbids polygamy, but mentions circumstances under which that ban might be temporarily lifted.

Sorry, how can something be wrong or bad enough to be forbidden, but then not be forbidden for a time?

 

[DeepShadow]

That's quite a weird analogy. That was a specific command for a very specific situation. What would change about the world that would make homosexuality or gay marriage suddenly acceptable?

That's a good question; I don't know. But then the church hasn't changed on that issue, has it?

Sorry, how can something be wrong or bad enough to be forbidden, but then not be forbidden for a time?

In the case of polygamy, the Book of Mormon explicitly states that it is allowed from time to time for increased reproduction rates. The rest of the time, it's forbidden. It's a spiritually dangerous practice, but sometimes necessary when the church is facing extermination.

 

[Magic Man]

That's a good question; I don't know. But then the church hasn't changed on that issue, has it?

No, but it changed on similar issues.

In the case of polygamy, the Book of Mormon explicitly states that it is allowed from time to time for increased reproduction rates. The rest of the time, it's forbidden. It's a spiritually dangerous practice, but sometimes necessary when the church is facing extermination.

I still don't get it. If it's wrong, it's wrong. It shouldn't be allowed for any reason if it's wrong.

Also, how does that help reproduction? Why don't couples just have more kids?

 

[SoyLeche]

Also, how does that help reproduction? Why don't couples just have more kids?

Well, there's a 9 month waiting period, followed by some time to recouperate. There's also a lot of wear and tear involved.

 

[DeepShadow]

I still don't get it. If it's wrong, it's wrong. It shouldn't be allowed for any reason if it's wrong.

I'm surprised you see right and wrong as a dichotomy. After all, killing people is usually wrong, but what about self defense, or defense of others?

 

[Watchmen]

I'm surprised you see right and wrong as a dichotomy. After all, killing people is usually wrong, but what about self defense, or defense of others?

Only when one reasonably believes he is about to suffer imminent offensive or harmful contact and he responds with reasonable force. However, one cannot claim self defense if he is the original aggressor UNLESS (1) he attempted to end the conflict and retreat and the other person came at him again, or (2) he initially used non-deadly force in his attack, but the other person responded with deadly force.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, there's a 9 month waiting period, followed by some time to recouperate. There's also a lot of wear and tear involved.

But what's the difference if it's one man and one woman doing it rather than one man doing it with many women? Either way you still have the same 9-month waiting period and other hinderances.

 

[SoyLeche]

But what's the difference if it's one man and one woman doing it rather than one man doing it with many women? Either way you still have the same 9-month waiting period and other hinderances.

One version requires more men than the other.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm surprised you see right and wrong as a dichotomy. After all, killing people is usually wrong, but what about self defense, or defense of others?

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a decree by God. According to Jesus, killing is always wrong, as in "Turn the other cheek".

We're talking about a way of life here, not a simple action like killing. Plus, as I said before, higher reproduction can be achieved without resorting to polygamy. And when is polygamy OK? When the population of the world is getting low or when the population of LDS is getting low?

 

[Magic Man]

One version requires more men than the other.

And? Are you saying at some point there were enough women, but not enough men?

 

[DeepShadow]

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a decree by God. According to Jesus, killing is always wrong, as in "Turn the other cheek".

Huh? Jesus acknowledged that circumstances change. His gospel was not the dichotomy you claim it was, or else he could not have released the woman in adultery, nor could he have cleared the temple with a whip. Both of these were forbidden by the law that Jesus espoused.

He even told the Pharisees that special circumstances could affect whether something was a sin. He cited David eating the shewbread that was only allowed for priests, because it was a special circumstance--an emergency, in that case.

Give up the dichotomy. It's not supported by scripture. God tells us what we need to know TODAY. That's why we HAVE a prophet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One version requires more men than the other.

Following this logic,

- what would be the purpose of a polygamy doctrine that, AFAIK, led in many instances to women divorcing their first husband and marrying a second one polygamously?

- how does this explain the purpose of plural marriages where some of the wives were not intimate with their husbands (as I understand happened in some cases, for instance with some of Brigham Young's wives)? Marrying a woman and then never having kids with her is certainly not about increasing reproductive rates.

 

[Magic Man]

Huh? Jesus acknowledged that circumstances change. His gospel was not the dichotomy you claim it was, or else he could not have released the woman in adultery, nor could he have cleared the temple with a whip. Both of these were forbidden by the law that Jesus espoused.

I always thought of his clearing the temple with a whip was an example of his humanity, an example of him not being perfect. I always thought that it wasn't something he was proud of or something he'd advocate. The releasing the women from adultery is not familiar to me.

He even told the Pharisees that special circumstances could affect whether something was a sin. He cited David eating the shewbread that was only allowed for priests, because it was a special circumstance--an emergency, in that case.

And yet there were cases where something simply wasn't acceptable, like killing.

Give up the dichotomy. It's not supported by scripture. God tells us what we need to know TODAY. That's why we HAVE a prophet.

OK, let's go a different route. You say polygamy's sometimes necessary. Why? You have a certain number of women. Why does it matter whether they are impregnated by the same man or different men?

 

[Watchmen]

I'll just jump in with my two cents.

I always thought of his clearing the temple with a whip was an example of his humanity, an example of him not being perfect. I always thought that it wasn't something he was proud of or something he'd advocate. The releasing the women from adultery is not familiar to me.

Jesus was perfect (at least according to LDS doctrine and, I'm pretty sure, most if no all of Christiandom). Therefore, his clearing of the temple could not have been an example of him not being perfect because that would negate the perfect person he was. Rather, clearing the temple was an example of Jesus' righteous indigination - he cleared the temple not out of anger, but out of a desire to purify it.

As for the woman being released from adultry, that's the story about the woman who was about to be stoned and Jesus turned on the crowd, telling them that he who is without sin be the first to throw the stone. Of course, everyone knew they (like the adulterer) had sinned so none of them could throw the first stone. Jesus' statement and teaching was contrary to the law. According to the law, the woman should have been stoned. She wasn't because there was/is no dichotomy.

And yet there were cases where something simply wasn't acceptable, like killing.

The Bible, especially the Old Testament (which we believe to be scripture), is fully of examples of God commanding his people to kill. Again, there is no dichotomy - it depends on the situation at the time - sometimes God says don't kill, sometimes he says kill every living things (even women, children, and animals).

 

[Magic Man]

I'll just jump in with my two cents.

Jesus was perfect (at least according to LDS doctrine and, I'm pretty sure, most if no all of Christiandom). Therefore, his clearing of the temple could not have been an example of him not being perfect because that would negate the perfect person he was. Rather, clearing the temple was an example of Jesus' righteous indigination - he cleared the temple not out of anger, but out of a desire to purify it.

OK, I never got that from the Christian teachings I've come across. It may just be an LDS thing or it may just be that I never came across it.

As for the woman being released from adultry, that's the story about the woman who was about to be stoned and Jesus turned on the crowd, telling them that he who is without sin be the first to throw the stone. Of course, everyone knew they (like the adulterer) had sinned so none of them could throw the first stone. Jesus' statement and teaching was contrary to the law. According to the law, the woman should have been stoned. She wasn't because there was/is no dichotomy.

Thank you. I don't think that's a case of making something OK in a certain case. It seems to me that Jesus's reaction would go for any and all cases of adultery. I thought he was saying it's never OK to stone someone for that, not that in this particular case, it wasn't OK.

The Bible, especially the Old Testament (which we believe to be scripture), is fully of examples of God commanding his people to kill. Again, there is no dichotomy - it depends on the situation at the time - sometimes God says don't kill, sometimes he says kill every living things (even women, children, and animals).

Are there examples in the NT? I thought that was all in the OT. Anyway, that's why I specified Jesus. Jesus's teachings were quite a bit different from the OT.