Support NeoGAF

[Brianemone]

Something I've always wondered........... do the general authorities believe what they are saying?

I mean, do they trick themselves into continuing to believe that they are acting on behalf of god? Does the prophet think he actually talks to god? I wish they would let their guard down as public figures (at least to the church) and be completely honest about what they think they actually do (not what the church says they do).

Since I was a kid I had my doubts about this sort of thing. Like patriarchal blessings, priesthood blessings, inspired leadership callings etc. How many of these older mormons still actively seek truth and how many just continue going through the motions because it's ingrained in them or because they don't want to feel like they have wasted their life following and teaching things that they don't actually believe anymore?

 

[ronito]

Something I've always wondered........... do the general authorities believe what they are saying?

I mean, do they trick themselves into continuing to believe that they are acting on behalf of god? Does the prophet think he actually talks to god? I wish they would let their guard down as public figures (at least to the church) and be completely honest about what they think they actually do (not what the church says they do).

Since I was a kid I had my doubts about this sort of thing. Like patriarchal blessings, priesthood blessings, inspired leadership callings etc. How many of these older mormons still actively seek truth and how many just continue going through the motions because it's ingrained in them or because they don't want to feel like they have wasted their life following and teaching things that they don't actually believe anymore?

Well Hinckley was pretty honest about the whole thing. If I remember correctly he said he hadn't seen god but he felt his influence in his life and had felt the spirit. I figure for him it's not much different than most believing members it's just that he has the power to do something about his promptings.

I find that a lot of exmos have this idea that the men at top know it's a lie and are actively and knowingly perpetuating a fraud. Certainly that's a really romantic idea, the all powerful group of old men running the lives of their followers. But honestly, I think, and have seen that these men are no different than most members. They probably feel that they've been given an enormous responsibility and are trying their best to keep up with tradition. It's like I've said they don't need to see god they need to know that someone else did. Fact is if you're that high up in the church not seeing god isn't going to change your view of the church. Even when people go through the second anointing they're promised to see christ and when they don't they take it to mean it was a spiritual meeting (again the problem is with you not with what you're taught). I honestly think the GAs are just guys trying to do the best they can. The most I've heard about a GA straying from the dogma is believing that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction. But that's it.

 

[CorvoSol]

Any of ya in the mormon corridor, you may have heard about the shooting in Pocatello. I work in that plaza and heard the shot. Creepy.

Haven't heard anything about this and I'm more or less in the next town over. Then again I've been cooped up in a UN simulation all weekend, so I dunno nothin' bout nothin'.

As to the seeing God thing, I continue to believe that the Prophets do communicate with God in a way beyond the regular members, be that visions, the actual presence, or influence. I obviously can't offer any proof, but it is coherent with my personal testimony, which ultimately is what matters most to me.

Whether The Lord and the Prophet sit down for weekly correlation meetings or not, though, I couldn't say.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

It always bugged me in that the belief that apostles and up had physically seen Christ was widely taught, but in sort of a wink wink sort of way. The speculation was that as special witnesses, they must have seen Christ in person (and Talmage interviewed the big guy in the temple when writing Jesus the Christ), but these experiences were too sacred ever to mention or ask about... So the idea was definitely left out in the open for people to speculate on, but it was too sacred to confirm or deny.

Which, of course, led my apostate mind to wonder why everyone else who saw God could run around testifying about it, but not modern apostles and prophets?

 

[Laurentius]

It always bugged me in that the belief that apostles and up had physically seen Christ was widely taught, but in sort of a wink wink sort of way. The speculation was that as special witnesses, they must have seen Christ in person (and Talmage interviewed the big guy in the temple when writing Jesus the Christ), but these experiences were too sacred ever to mention or ask about... So the idea was definitely left out in the open for people to speculate on, but it was too sacred to confirm or deny.

Which, of course, led my apostate mind to wonder why everyone else who saw God could run around testifying about it, but not modern apostles and prophets?

On my mission a Seventy came and essentially told us that the 12 and the First Presidency have literally seen Christ in the flesh. Or at least he specifically said:

"They know Christ as Peter, James and John knew him."

And then told a story about Bruce R. McConkie. Apparently he heard him say this:

"How do you prove that Jesus is the Christ? Through the resurrection. How do you prove the resurrection? Through witnesses."

He then went on to say that the First Presidency and the Twelve are those witnesses.

That seemed pretty clear to us at the time, since I had only ever heard the "wink wink" stuff before.

Of course, "something a random seventy said at a zone conference" never passed for official Church doctrine. There's too much crazy stuff they tend to say at those things. Heh.

 

[ronito]

Yeah well there's that second anointing guy who was told that he would physically see Christ upon his second anointing and all that. But afterwards there was no visitation everyone just said it was a spiritual manifestation. And like I said I swear that Hinckley said on 60 minutes that he didn't see god or or anything but saying it was a spiritual thing. I remember that sort of vividly because I remember thinking "well if he hasn't seen god who has? could it be that only Joseph Smith did?" Sorta like the whole three witnesses saying they saw with their "spiritual eyes"

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Yeah well there's that second anointing guy who was told that he would physically see Christ upon his second anointing and all that. But afterwards there was no visitation everyone just said it was a spiritual manifestation. And like I said I swear that Hinckley said on 60 minutes that he didn't see god or or anything but saying it was a spiritual thing. I remember that sort of vividly because I remember thinking "well if he hasn't seen god who has? could it be that only Joseph Smith did?" Sorta like the whole three witnesses saying they saw with their "spiritual eyes"

So yeah WTF is up with the second anointing? I first heard about it before my mission, then heard more from my MTC teacher. Then that general authority who apostatized and gave a detailed account of it seemed to match up with what I had heard. Is it anything more than a Mormon elite club? Do you think Romney's got his done??

 

[ronito]

lol damnit.

Last conference there were huge rumors and I was like "meh, it'll be nothing." And they made that announcement about missions.

This time there were the rumors about women praying at conference and I was like "Meh, it'll be nothing." and now

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56026380-78/women-general-conference-pray.html.csp?page=1

The Salt Lake Tribune has learned that LDS women are scheduled, as of now, to offer invocations or benedictions at next month’s General Conference — an apparent first in the faith’s 183-year history.

What can I say, the spirit is obviously not with me.

 

[Laurentius]

lol damnit.

Last conference there were huge rumors and I was like "meh, it'll be nothing." And they made that announcement about missions.

This time there were the rumors about women praying at conference and I was like "Meh, it'll be nothing." and now

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56026380-78/women-general-conference-pray.html.csp?page=1



What can I say, the spirit is obviously not with me.

So what you're really saying is that whenever you make a conference prediction, we should just assume the opposite will be true?

So yeah WTF is up with the second anointing? I first heard about it before my mission, then heard more from my MTC teacher. Then that general authority who apostatized and gave a detailed account of it seemed to match up with what I had heard. Is it anything more than a Mormon elite club? Do you think Romney's got his done??

Have you listened to the podcast with that guy that John Dehlin did? Dehlin didn't end up publishing it on Mormon Stories, but you can still find it floating around. I have no idea if Romney had it, although I would say there's a fairly decent chance.

There's some definitely interesting things that go along with the second anointing, so that podcast is definitely worth a listen if you get a chance. (It's really long, and the guy tends to rant a lot throughout, but worth the time I would say.)

 

[Deleted member 1159]

It's been a while, but I'm guessing I heard it. Was it like 4 hours long?

 

[Laurentius]

It's been a while, but I'm guessing I heard it. Was it like 4 hours long?

Yeah, something like that. Mormon Stories interviews tend to be incredibly long.

 

[CorvoSol]

lol damnit.

Last conference there were huge rumors and I was like "meh, it'll be nothing." And they made that announcement about missions.

This time there were the rumors about women praying at conference and I was like "Meh, it'll be nothing." and now

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56026380-78/women-general-conference-pray.html.csp?page=1



What can I say, the spirit is obviously not with me.

I still can't believe this is a thing. I mean, I dunno, I guess I've never noticed it before.

 

[Brianemone]

I still can't believe this is a thing. I mean, I dunno, I guess I've never noticed it before.

I know right?

I am sure I remember prayers given by female members. Is it just for the two main sessions that this has been the case and perhaps I'm thinking of other auxiliary sessions?

Also, what should I be googling to find that podcast?

 

[Laurentius]

Also, what should I be googling to find that podcast?

You can find it here:

http://mormonthink.com/tomphillips.htm#podcast

 

[Fathead]

Sorry, its been a crazy week. Got offered a promtion and transfer in the SLC area. Will be moving in the next week.

Anyway, cops shot a dude who took a hostage after a high speed chase last week. Happened at the Petco in Chubbuck. I work in the Verizon building right there and heard the shot.

http://www.kpvi.com/content/news/lo...Thursday-Shooting/ZF6YxJc2xEyIYH7q1o7Lgw.cspx

 

[CorvoSol]

I know right?

I am sure I remember prayers given by female members. Is it just for the two main sessions that this has been the case and perhaps I'm thinking of other auxiliary sessions?

Also, what should I be googling to find that podcast?

I guess its that, since there are usually several women speakers during Conference, I never have bothered to notice that there aren't any women prayers offered. Honestly the whole thing just sounds like one of those scheduling things, like how members can go decades without giving talks or having callings, rather than anything intentional. Iunno.

 

[ronito]

Sorry, its been a crazy week. Got offered a promtion and transfer in the SLC area. Will be moving in the next week.

Anyway, cops shot a dude who took a hostage after a high speed chase last week. Happened at the Petco in Chubbuck. I work in the Verizon building right there and heard the shot.

http://www.kpvi.com/content/news/lo...Thursday-Shooting/ZF6YxJc2xEyIYH7q1o7Lgw.cspx

Yeah yeah yeah, a guy got shot. Now to the important stuff. You got offered a promotion and are moving within a week? Are you mad?!

 

[Fathead]

Lol. Its just pocatello to salt lake. Was there yesterday, probably head back to find a spot tomorrow.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Welcome to the Promised Land my son. Where the beer flows like wine.

(actually you should bring down a bunch of Idaho beer for those of us not close enough to a border to make a beer run)

 

[Yoritomo]

So yeah WTF is up with the second anointing? I first heard about it before my mission, then heard more from my MTC teacher. Then that general authority who apostatized and gave a detailed account of it seemed to match up with what I had heard. Is it anything more than a Mormon elite club? Do you think Romney's got his done??

I think lots of people had actually heard about it.

The only thing that was really revealed by the podcast is that the "Calling and Election made sure" and special washing of the feet ritual for uppity ups in the church were one and the same.

Also 2 things about the apostles and seeing Christ.

The fact that they do not profess having seen Christ leads me to believe that they have not seen Christ and if you view the church dimly are not only in this as a conspiracy for their own best interests. Were it a large malevolent conspiracy why not solidify the resolve of the membership and lie about having seen Christ? The idea that you are called as a witness and then when Christ appears to you you say nothing about it because it is too sacred, when every other person who has claimed a visitation has shouted it from the rooftop, is pretty dumb. Instead they proclaim fervent ambiguity in all things.

This also means that mormons and their guilt are their own worst enemy.

 

[Brianemone]

You can find it here:

http://mormonthink.com/tomphillips.htm#podcast

Thanks for the link. I really enjoyed listening to that, its sparked some interesting topics of conversation between my wife and I.

The rift that leaving the church after such a long time caused in his family is probably to be expected but still very sad.

It brings up the question about why active mormons are so worried about anything that might be considered "anti-mormon" Even if not directly aimed at the church, why should any topic be off limits? Even when active I was fascinated by learning about anything even if it went against what I believed.

 

[Hitokage]

The fact that they do not profess having seen Christ leads me to believe that they have not seen Christ and if you view the church dimly are not only in this as a conspiracy for their own best interests. Were it a large malevolent conspiracy why not solidify the resolve of the membership and lie about having seen Christ? The idea that you are called as a witness and then when Christ appears to you you say nothing about it because it is too sacred, when every other person who has claimed a visitation has shouted it from the rooftop, is pretty dumb. Instead they proclaim fervent ambiguity in all things.

I don't believe willful malevolence needs to play any part of it. They're players in a larger system which they don't want to disrupt, and at least some probably believe what's going on is how it's done.

That said, it used to be the claim that God still talks with his prophets just like they did in antiquity, but that sort of activity today isn't even what it was supposed to be under two centuries ago.

 

[CorvoSol]

I don't know if this is contributing to the conversation or not, but I'm almost certain President Monson said something along the lines of "Thus Saith the Lord" during conference in April, 2008. It was during his closing comments, I think.

I dunno, for me, I'm pretty sure that even when the Prophets and Apostles aren't sitting face-to-face with the Christ, they're receiving clear instruction from him. Now, I figure sometimes it's just inspired feeling, but other times I believe it's most definitely more than that. We don't hear about it all the time because miracles don't exactly generate faith.

It's funny that the topic of "Guys up top must know its fake" comes up, because I remember hearing a lot of that about the Catholic Church on my mission. At the time I bought that, but now, I don't think so. It is, as ronito said, too romantic an idea to really buy for me. Especially since (and I suppose that to most this is no source of great credence to some) Preach My Gospel says that there have been many religious leaders throughout history who, Christian or not, and in spite of not being Prophets, have been imparted light to guide people.

It's easy to say that because President Monson doesn't often stand up and say "Thus Saith the Lord of Hosts" or "I have dreamed a dream, or in other words, I have had a vision" that some kind of thinning of the Church has happened, but as I have been asked to look at things from other perspectives, I must put forth that there are other ways of looking at this.

Just as I have heard it said that some think the Church no longer teaches that Exaltation equates to Deification, I have to say that the notion that the Prophet speaks with Christ, whether face-to-face like Moses, or to a voice as Elijah did, is still very much alive in the Church. I can't account for everything every Prophet has said, but I can say, as an active member living in one of the centers of Mormonism, that the belief that the Prophet literally communicates with the Christ is very much alive here.


ON AN UNRELATED topic, President Clark, the President of BYU Idaho, spoke concerning BYUI Secrets (the hip place to talk about how much you enjoy getting your husband's moneyshots!) the other day: You can read it here.

It's not exactly surprising, I suppose, given that it's what you would expect him to say. I can't say I don't agree with some of his points, though. Mostly that I don't really know that I think it's a great idea. As other professors around campus have commented (BYUI-S has been something of the local scuttlebutt/sensation these past few weeks!) it is representative of the rather repressed nature of the student body. I agree that keeping things bottled up isn't great, but there should be a better way than this, and frankly, some things simply don't need to be said.

In fact, the page is popular enough, and some people's confessions carelessly specific enough, that there have already been people around campus who have seen social situations become, shall we say, more problematic because one roommate or ex commented something and everyone around now knows what was said.

I don't know that I usually find myself agreeing with President Clark on much (which isn't to say I find myself in open rebellion often, either), but I get where he's coming from here.

 

[ronito]

Obviously as resident confession taker I don't agree.

I think when people can use anonymity they can be their true selves. I think he should be complaining that when you're confessing anonymously you're not being the self you portray outwardly.

Also I don't think that anonymous confessions detract from god's plan. I think they're just a thing. They can hurt you or help you. It's largely up to you. I've seen people's lives change for the better when they realize that perhaps they're not terrible freaks that are dealing with a temptation that no one has ever dealt with. Of course I've seen people also take it to mean that "hey everyone's doing it so it's ok if I do it too"

Honestly I think he missed an opportunity to see this as a "Have we created such a repressive environment that such a thing is necessary?" instead of thinking "Gosh, people are sharing their secrets this is a problem."

 

[CorvoSol]

Obviously as resident confession taker I don't agree.

I think when people can use anonymity they can be their true selves. I think he should be complaining that when you're confessing anonymously you're not being the self you portray outwardly.

Also I don't think that anonymous confessions detract from god's plan. I think they're just a thing. They can hurt you or help you. It's largely up to you. I've seen people's lives change for the better when they realize that perhaps they're not terrible freaks that are dealing with a temptation that no one has ever dealt with. Of course I've seen people also take it to mean that "hey everyone's doing it so it's ok if I do it too"

Honestly I think he missed an opportunity to see this as a "Have we created such a repressive environment that such a thing is necessary?" instead of thinking "Gosh, people are sharing their secrets this is a problem."

I agree with that to an extent. I mean, I certainly can see anonymity as a way of helping people to confess. That's not what I find problematic about BYU-I secrets. Confessing is confessing, and while I feel it ought to be done through proper channels, it is most understandable and reasonable that people would want to do it publicly.

I can even see using the site for silly things, for saying stuff like "I wore flip flops to the testing center and didn't get caught!"

But some people are using this to air grievances, and they're doing a very bad job of concealing that. People are reading this page, seeing something they know is about them, and getting hurt, and that I think is wrong. You shouldn't use anonymity in that way.

Then there's what President Clark brings up about the proprietor of the page knowing you. While I seriously doubt that that's something they'd use against you, you can't ever be certain.

Most of all though, is that it isn't private. If it were anonymous confession for the sake of getting something off your chest, that'd be fine. But it isn't. It's anonymous confession for the sake of public spectacle, and that's wrong. Whether it be that the person confessing is seeking attention by confessing to a source they know will be seen by a sizable portion of the student body, or whether we consider that the purpose of this organ is to publicly display people's, well, secrets for the amusement or interest of the student body, either way, I don't think it's healthy. Not for the students individually, and not for the, shall we say, student culture.

EDIT: I suppose I should be clear that I don't have a HUGE problem with it, because I tend to think that on the whole people skew benevolently, and there's no real malice intended by most confessors or the proprietor. I am concerned more with the, I don't know, the effect it will have. Granted, I suspect that in due course it will fade from popularity and that will be that. But I think it does bear discussing since its presently something popular on campus.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Maybe it's not that a confession is about someone in particular, but that a particular confession is a trend? Maybe certain things are just happening a lot. I've noticed a lot of ex-Mormons have circumstances surrounding their lives which mirror mine almost to a T. I could see a lot of people reading these confessions and assuming it's about them, when the reality is it's a very common occurrence. Just like someone can get a psychic reading or read their horoscope and be convinced it applies.

I think, in almost all cases, openness and honesty is the best policy. Covering shit up almost always bites someone in the ass. Even if I've caught a loved one in simple little white lie, it still feels bad bro.

 

[Yoritomo]

I don't believe willful malevolence needs to play any part of it. They're players in a larger system which they don't want to disrupt, and at least some probably believe what's going on is how it's done.

That said, it used to be the claim that God still talks with his prophets just like they did in antiquity, but that sort of activity today isn't even what it was supposed to be under two centuries ago.

That seems plausible. It explains all the vagueness. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[ronito]

I knew a lady that was highly involved in her catholic church and when we really got down to brass tacks she didn't believe it at all. When I asked her why she was so into the church she said something to the effect of "I was born and raised catholic as was my mom and her mom and her mom and so on and I'll be damned if that ends on my or my kid's watch."

I do wonder if there's a GA that's like that. I have heard of one GA that did Impact training (it's an offshoot of scientology that's really popular in Utah right now) and confessed to people I know that he views much of the church as untrue but he's so steeped in the culture and he likes some of the teachings so he stays.

Personally I think the church should weed people like that out. They do more harm than the notorious "anti-mormon" Because people look at that and think "Well if HE thinks most of this isn't true and can break some of the rules then I can too."

 

[Brianemone]

I knew a lady that was highly involved in her catholic church and when we really got down to brass tacks she didn't believe it at all. When I asked her why she was so into the church she said something to the effect of "I was born and raised catholic as was my mom and her mom and her mom and so on and I'll be damned if that ends on my or my kid's watch."

I do wonder if there's a GA that's like that. I have heard of one GA that did Impact training (it's an offshoot of scientology that's really popular in Utah right now) and confessed to people I know that he views much of the church as untrue but he's so steeped in the culture and he likes some of the teachings so he stays.

Personally I think the church should weed people like that out. They do more harm than the notorious "anti-mormon" Because people look at that and think "Well if HE thinks most of this isn't true and can break some of the rules then I can too."

This was everyone I met in Italy on my mission.

I agree that most of the general authorities/apostles truly believe what they are teaching, but I also think that they are lying when they say that they know without a doubt, to me anyone that says that is either completely ignorant or flat out dishonest.

I would believe that want more than anything for it to be true and that they have convinced themselves but to say there is no doubt implies no faith, and if there isn't any faith then they would need something physical/tangible.

When Mormon Doctrine was written would you have expected Bruce to have had his second anointing? seems silly if he hadn't, then in that case did he believe he had seen Jesus? if he hadn't (which could be completely possible given that he was a Seventy and not an apostle. When it did happen did he then believe that he saw christ at some point?

 

[CorvoSol]

Haha, oh boy. So I was chatting with a friend of mine who lives down in Utah, and she said that she was in ward council, and had brought up the issue of a young black girl who was feeling down and depressed that she wouldn't or wasn't finding her OTL. Cue some guy on the council saying that, because of his mission in the deep south, he had an extensive knowledge of black culture, and that the girl needed to go to a black ward to be with "her people."

Oh man, some people. The plus side is this friend of mine also pointed out how poorly this reflected on the Church. So I suppose that for all the people with bad ideas floating around, we've got some who have good ones.

 

[ronito]

Haha, oh boy. So I was chatting with a friend of mine who lives down in Utah, and she said that she was in ward council, and had brought up the issue of a young black girl who was feeling down and depressed that she wouldn't or wasn't finding her OTL. Cue some guy on the council saying that, because of his mission in the deep south, he had an extensive knowledge of black culture, and that the girl needed to go to a black ward to be with "her people."

Oh man, some people. The plus side is this friend of mine also pointed out how poorly this reflected on the Church. So I suppose that for all the people with bad ideas floating around, we've got some who have good ones.

wow. well that's....sorta unsurprising I guess.

I've brought it up here plenty that growing up in Utah I had this sort of stuff all the time. I remember being in a youth fireside and the speaker talking about how the church leaders recommended that dating should be done within your own race and everyone turned to look at me (the only non-white in the room). Welp, there went any chances.

 

[CorvoSol]

wow. well that's....sorta unsurprising I guess.

I've brought it up here plenty that growing up in Utah I had this sort of stuff all the time. I remember being in a youth fireside and the speaker talking about how the church leaders recommended that dating should be done within your own race and everyone turned to look at me (the only non-white in the room). Welp, there went any chances.

I had hoped it was something of an outdated thing, but time moves more slowly in Utah I guess. I don't know how high and mighty I can act on this, because I'm sorta opposed to inter-national marriages for a similar reason.

Sorta. I mean, I have a friend I met on my mission, and she's marrying a neighbor of mine. I'm fine with it, and I think it's cool, but I won't pretend that I don't much think it's for me. Having gone through the whole culture shock thing of being dropped into another country, I don't know that I could take a girl away from the world and people she knew and drop her in a strange land, away from friends and family. But I don't think it on account of skin, so much as adapting to life in another country really is a hard thing.

 

[ronito]

I had hoped it was something of an outdated thing, but time moves more slowly in Utah I guess. I don't know how high and mighty I can act on this, because I'm sorta opposed to inter-national marriages for a similar reason.

Sorta. I mean, I have a friend I met on my mission, and she's marrying a neighbor of mine. I'm fine with it, and I think it's cool, but I won't pretend that I don't much think it's for me. Having gone through the whole culture shock thing of being dropped into another country, I don't know that I could take a girl away from the world and people she knew and drop her in a strange land, away from friends and family. But I don't think it on account of skin, so much as adapting to life in another country really is a hard thing.

well there's a difference between a inter-racial marriage and a inter-national one. Mormons are sort of weird in that respect. They don't really make much about inter-national marriage. Like I knew a guy who served a mission in Chile met a sister missionary there from Argentina. The guy ended his mission came back to Venezuela and wrote to this sister missionary after he got home. A few months after she was off her mission he asked her if she wanted to get married and she was like "Sure" and they were married like a month later.

Any other religion and people would be like "Are you crazy?!" But mormons tend to be like "Oh how nice!"

 

[Deleted member 1159]

So I'd say around half my facebook peeps are LDS, but I've seen about zero countering to all the gay marriage promotion going on and quite a lot of support from people I thought would be staunchly against it.

Has this issue really gotten to the point where it's ready to be put to rest? I feel like even if the SCOTUS rules in favor of prop 8, or abstains from making some sweeping historical ruling, the national movement has gotten to the point where gay marriage is going to be accepted universally. It might take a constitutional amendment or something, but would it be reasonable to assume that such support will be there when the time comes?

I'm really interested in how the church is going to handle the support of gay marriage from its own membership, even if there's a distinction between support for secular marriage and temple marriage.

 

[ronito]

So I'd say around half my facebook peeps are LDS, but I've seen about zero countering to all the gay marriage promotion going on and quite a lot of support from people I thought would be staunchly against it.

Has this issue really gotten to the point where it's ready to be put to rest? I feel like even if the SCOTUS rules in favor of prop 8, or abstains from making some sweeping historical ruling, the national movement has gotten to the point where gay marriage is going to be accepted universally. It might take a constitutional amendment or something, but would it be reasonable to assume that such support will be there when the time comes?

I'm really interested in how the church is going to handle the support of gay marriage from its own membership, even if there's a distinction between support for secular marriage and temple marriage.

Nah, it'll start soon.
I'm awaiting the deluge of stupid facebook posts on my wife's facebook soon. How she maintains her sanity with that thing, I don't know.

 

[CorvoSol]

So I'd say around half my facebook peeps are LDS, but I've seen about zero countering to all the gay marriage promotion going on and quite a lot of support from people I thought would be staunchly against it.

Has this issue really gotten to the point where it's ready to be put to rest? I feel like even if the SCOTUS rules in favor of prop 8, or abstains from making some sweeping historical ruling, the national movement has gotten to the point where gay marriage is going to be accepted universally. It might take a constitutional amendment or something, but would it be reasonable to assume that such support will be there when the time comes?

I'm really interested in how the church is going to handle the support of gay marriage from its own membership, even if there's a distinction between support for secular marriage and temple marriage.

None of my LDS friends have put anything about in on FB from what I've seen, but like Ronito says, I expect nothing unless they actually pass it. Then I suspect to see a fair amount of stuff.

A fair amount of people in my Poli Sci classes don't seem opposed to it, but then, they're Poli Sci classes.

EDIT: Nevermind, people are posting the Proclamation, so I guess that's that. Well, nothing outstandingly bad about that really.

 

[CorvoSol]

Sorry for the double-post, but I thought I'd try and get the jump on Ronito for once:

Church Response to HRC petition.

I think it's a fair enough thing for the Church to say, and while I suppose that some here might find it too little, in light of some of the people I know, it's very much something members needed to hear. Then again, I'm biased to think this way and agree with much of what the Church has to say on the topic.

EDIT: Oh, and now we have some =/= going on on Facebook. I think it's in terrible taste.

 

[ronito]

Sorry for the double-post, but I thought I'd try and get the jump on Ronito for once:

Church Response to HRC petition.

I think it's a fair enough thing for the Church to say, and while I suppose that some here might find it too little, in light of some of the people I know, it's very much something members needed to hear. Then again, I'm biased to think this way and agree with much of what the Church has to say on the topic.

EDIT: Oh, and now we have some =/= going on on Facebook. I think it's in terrible taste.

I think the church learned much after the whole Prop 8 thing.
And really I think this is the best that can be expected of the church. They're not going to come back and embrace the secular vs. spiritual marriage approach. And really they've sort of gone above what I'd expect in saying "it's ok to have those feelings" even if they say it's an abomination to do anything about it. Like I've said many times I don't see much in the "gay and stay" approach to the church. I think that will only lead to sin and resent later instead of just sin now unless the person has an exceedingly low sexdrive.

But honestly, I don't expect any better from the church. I know some gay exmos that are anxiously awaiting the day when the church allows people to be actively gay and mormon. And I just don't think that's going to happen. I think the only thing that I feel the church should do is instead of addressing the HRC about how people should love gays they should have a special address to the membership about it. Like I said, I know that in conference their usually is a talk about accepting the "sinner" but then it's followed by 3 talks about how evil the world and people are. It's not surprising that some take it to mean bigotry and shunning is fine.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Sorry for the double-post, but I thought I'd try and get the jump on Ronito for once:

Church Response to HRC petition.

I think it's a fair enough thing for the Church to say, and while I suppose that some here might find it too little, in light of some of the people I know, it's very much something members needed to hear. Then again, I'm biased to think this way and agree with much of what the Church has to say on the topic.

EDIT: Oh, and now we have some =/= going on on Facebook. I think it's in terrible taste.

My question to brother Otterson is: why? Why do these people have to struggle? Why do they face all these challenges? It's not because of God, it's because of the intolerance of man. It's xenophobia, the irrational fear of someone who's foreign or different, cloaked in the garb of religious doctrine. To give sympathy for the pain a gay person feels from being told his or her activity is an abomination, when you're part of the source of that pain to begin with, seems rather hollow.

Saying you love people while simultaneously condemning a major part of who they are is hollow as well. Saying you love and accept people isn't the same as actually doing it.

 

[CorvoSol]

I think the church learned much after the whole Prop 8 thing.
And really I think this is the best that can be expected of the church. They're not going to come back and embrace the secular vs. spiritual marriage approach. And really they've sort of gone above what I'd expect in saying "it's ok to have those feelings" even if they say it's an abomination to do anything about it. Like I've said many times I don't see much in the "gay and stay" approach to the church. I think that will only lead to sin and resent later instead of just sin now unless the person has an exceedingly low sexdrive.

But honestly, I don't expect any better from the church. I know some gay exmos that are anxiously awaiting the day when the church allows people to be actively gay and mormon. And I just don't think that's going to happen. I think the only thing that I feel the church should do is instead of addressing the HRC about how people should love gays they should have a special address to the membership about it. Like I said, I know that in conference their usually is a talk about accepting the "sinner" but then it's followed by 3 talks about how evil the world and people are. It's not surprising that some take it to mean bigotry and shunning is fine.

I agree that I think this is the best one should expect for now. I think it's reasonable, too, given that there are certain doctrinal limitations on how far the Church can allow some things. I don't expect there to be an era in which homosexuality is condoned by the Church full-scale because it contradicts too much. But I suppose that people who did not expect the Church to grant the Priesthood to men of all races might have said the same, so I cannot say (granted, I do not feel these issues are completely the same). I do know that the Church won't ever condone gay marriage in the Temple, so it is irrational of people to ever worry on that note.

The dialogue here at school has mostly been that it would be a great weight off the Church's shoulders if Sealings were simply moved away from being legally binding marriages, just as they are not legally binding in so many other countries. But I agree that this seems to be a move away from Prop. 8.

 

[Yoritomo]

I feel silly but I went ahead and changed my facebook picture to an equal sign. Too many venomous posts. So this is passive aggressive dissent.

 

[ronito]

I feel silly but I went ahead and changed my facebook picture to an equal sign. Too many venomous posts. So this is passive aggressive dissent.

what I love is the posts on my Facebook that are like "You wanna see hate? The people that are pro marriage equality are way more hateful than us trying preserve marriage. We don't hate anyone. It's them gays!"

 

[Deleted member 1159]

"YOU AREN'T TOLERATING MY BIGOTED OPINION! SO MUCH FOR TOLERANCE!"

 

[alejob]

Here is another twist to this subject.


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56068269-180/emmett-church-mission-brooks.html.csp

A 20-year-old Mormon man says he was turned down as a missionary candidate for opposing the LDS Church’s stance on gays during his pre-mission interviews.

He says he also was denied a temple recommend for his beliefs, according to the online magazine Religion Dispatches.

The man, identified only as Emmett C. in the Pacific Northwest, is straight but has an older brother and sister who are gay. Last year, the young man applied to serve a two-year mission for the Utah-based faith but told his LDS stake president (an ecclesiastical leader) that if asked about the issue as a missionary, he would share his view that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are equal in the sight of God and should have the same rights and privileges as everyone else in the church — including temple marriage.

 

[ronito]

Here is another twist to this subject.


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56068269-180/emmett-church-mission-brooks.html.csp

That's hardly a twist. I mean the questions are:

"Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church? "

and

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? "

It's not hard seeing someone who was pro-gay marriage saying no to first or yes to the second. That means no temple recommend. Which means no mission. More expected than anything really.

 

[CorvoSol]

Here is another twist to this subject.


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56068269-180/emmett-church-mission-brooks.html.csp

I don't know if there's a right way to say this, but I can see why his Stake President would deny him Missionary Service. As a Missionary you're an official representative of the Church, among other things, and if you're going to suggest something so contrary as gay temple marriage (which is a very different subject from gay marriage), it would perhaps be better that you not go. There is room for dissension in the Church, yes, but there's also a difference between what you say as a Church member and what you say as a Missionary and Representative of the Church, and what Missionaries say has much more impact than they'd expect.

For instance, I once gave a talk before a congregation in which I said the word "advirto" which means "I caution" or "I warn" . The entire congregation had it out for me for weeks after that, thinking I'd overstepped the bounds of my authority etc etc. I can only imagine the impact saying "Gays should be allowed to be married in the Temple" would have coming from an Elder's mouth.

This is not to say that this isn't an opinion one is allowed to have. I myself couldn't rationalize it, but if you can, great for you. But a Missionary saying something is different, because it carries a different weight to it. In that sense, I can understand why this young man would be denied the opportunity to serve.

 

[ronito]

I don't know if there's a right way to say this, but I can see why his Stake President would deny him Missionary Service. As a Missionary you're an official representative of the Church, among other things, and if you're going to suggest something so contrary as gay temple marriage (which is a very different subject from gay marriage), it would perhaps be better that you not go. There is room for dissension in the Church, yes, but there's also a difference between what you say as a Church member and what you say as a Missionary and Representative of the Church, and what Missionaries say has much more impact than they'd expect.

For instance, I once gave a talk before a congregation in which I said the word "advirto" which means "I caution" or "I warn" . The entire congregation had it out for me for weeks after that, thinking I'd overstepped the bounds of my authority etc etc. I can only imagine the impact saying "Gays should be allowed to be married in the Temple" would have coming from an Elder's mouth.

This is not to say that this isn't an opinion one is allowed to have. I myself couldn't rationalize it, but if you can, great for you. But a Missionary saying something is different, because it carries a different weight to it. In that sense, I can understand why this young man would be denied the opportunity to serve.

Yeah I get that. And (slip in snide remark about mormons being no stranger to cognitive dissonance) if you truly believed the church was way wrong and causing harm in this why would you sign up to make getting people to join it for two years? I can get staying as a member (I myself tried) but come now, no one's forcing you to go. It's sorta like the church is your employer during that time. No employer is going to go out and hire someone who speaks out about how bad it is. It's just not a good fit. I am sorta surprised that someone made a stink about it. But perhaps I shouldn't be.

 

[Hitokage]

I feel silly but I went ahead and changed my facebook picture to an equal sign. Too many venomous posts. So this is passive aggressive dissent.

*nods*

 

[bluemax]

I feel silly but I went ahead and changed my facebook picture to an equal sign. Too many venomous posts. So this is passive aggressive dissent.

I posted on my Facebook feed that a blue Book of Mormon should be considered the counter to the red equal sign. Thankfully the only person who commented on it was my Mother who is totally cool. I think I only have maybe 2 friends on Facebook who are active members and not my direct family members.

Also are any of you guys playing Bioshock Infinite? I just started last night, and let me say as someone who grew up in the Church there was a lot of eery parallels in the first hour of that game.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

I posted on my Facebook feed that a blue Book of Mormon should be considered the counter to the red equal sign. Thankfully the only person who commented on it was my Mother who is totally cool. I think I only have maybe 2 friends on Facebook who are active members and not my direct family members.

Also are any of you guys playing Bioshock Infinite? I just started last night, and let me say as someone who grew up in the Church there was a lot of eery parallels in the first hour of that game.

I've heard that too. I haven't had a chance to sink more than a few minutes into it, but I get the vibe you're talking about too.