posted
Good question. Problem is, TomD, there is no answer. An individual question like that is going to have individualized answers - each varied from another. Admittedly, I have asked that same question.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because they believe the Book of Mormon is true. Because they agree with so many other things. Because it isn't all or nothing - testimonies grow a little at a time, which necessarily means that someone can understand/believe some things are not others, and they stick with it because while they have trouble with one issue, they won't throw out everything that is good and that they love for that one issue. Have some faith and patience that understanding will come or more revelation will or there is a purpose for that revelation right now, and that above all, that the Lord knows what he's doing.
Added: *amused* O, yes, there is.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
added: I would go with Katharina's answer. However, I still don't think that is the only answer.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, I've never heard of anyone losing their recommend over a differing opinion on abortion or same-sex marriage.
I think what Kate's trying to understand is why people don't.
Because the LDS church has not been unambiguous about its stance on same-sex marriage. How can you support same-sex marriage and still believe that the leadership of the church was speaking for God as they claimed when they condemned it? By default, isn't the implication there that you doubt their scriptural authority?
Tom: You should be made aware that although the church has very aggresively supported legislation that opposes SSM, the leadership has yet to release a statement where they lay out God's opinion on the matter.
They have not discussed civil unions, or any sort of middle ground on the matter. They have merely restated the scriptures mind on the whole matter. That men cannot fully be as God is without a woman to assist them, and vice versa. As well as adjuring the membership to support legislation that protects the basic family unit.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Jenna. That does make some sense. At least it makes it clear that (like Catholicism) it isn't a clear cut issue. Although the direct prophecy part still confuses me. I have the same question as Tom.
And thanks BlackBlade: That is good information. I had thought (again, from what people had said here) that the leadership had spoken prophetically on the issue.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even "direct prophecy" is, in Mormonism, rather vague in its meaning. It can mean anything from a vision to whisperings of the spirit. The point is that, whatever the way, God has spoken. In fact, I don't even think that "direct prophecy" is actually a "Mormon term." Prophecy is prophecy; or communication between mortals and God in any way He decides to impart knowledge.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm happy to have that discussion, Tom. Another thread?
Sure! I was very grateful to Rivka and Lisa and some of our other Jews when they explained the Jewish approach to faith and doctrine; it's still hard for me to grasp, since I think Judaism is almost as alien as it's possible a modern church can be to me, but I was glad to have the opportunity to read what they had to say.
Tomorrow? It's late in the day to start that conversation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I was very grateful to Rivka and Lisa and some of our other Jews when they explained the Jewish approach to faith and doctrine; it's still hard for me to grasp, since I think Judaism is almost as alien as it's possible a modern church can be to me, but I was glad to have the opportunity to read what they had to say.
Could you express that gratitude by avoiding using the word "church" in reference to Judaism? I'm pretty sure I have asked this of you before.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I was very grateful to Rivka and Lisa and some of our other Jews when they explained the Jewish approach to faith and doctrine; it's still hard for me to grasp, since I think Judaism is almost as alien as it's possible a modern church can be to me, but I was glad to have the opportunity to read what they had to say.
Could you express that gratitude by avoiding using the word "church" in reference to Judaism? I'm pretty sure I have asked this of you before.
Sorry this isn't in response to this comment but on another you made Rivka. Could you explain to me the Jewish (if thats the right demographic term) perspective on the law laid out by Moses from God? We can call it The Law since that's what it's called in the Old Testament if that's OK with you?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Thanks, Jenna. That does make some sense. At least it makes it clear that (like Catholicism) it isn't a clear cut issue. Although the direct prophecy part still confuses me. I have the same question as Tom.
And thanks BlackBlade: That is good information. I had thought (again, from what people had said here) that the leadership had spoken prophetically on the issue.
^^ This is a personal thread I created dabbling with this same issue. You will note alot of the participants of THIS thread are found therein
I eventually reached the conclusion that the letter from the church was asking members to in effect vote their conscience on this issue. I'm confident that President Hinckley probably supports a ban on even civil unions, but even in his letter he has not said, "God will not abide civil unions in the US."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sorry this isn't in response to this comment but on another you made Rivka. Could you explain to me the Jewish (if thats the right demographic term) perspective on the law laid out by Moses from God? We can call it The Law since that's what it's called in the Old Testament if that's OK with you?
Sure. In this thread, or elsewhere? And can it wait until tonight?
I should do SOME work today. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could you express that gratitude by avoiding using the word "church" in reference to Judaism?
Sure. And if I forget, given how incredibly often the word "church" is used in that context, please forgive me as we seek to forgive people who call users by their username.
------
quote:Because they believe the Book of Mormon is true. Because they agree with so many other things.
I'm having trouble imagining why, no matter how much else I liked about a religion, I would belong to a religion -- and still consider myself a faithful member of a religion -- that claimed direct divine revelation if I did not believe they were actually receiving such revelation. I can freely accept that such people may well exist, but their minds are a mystery to me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand your question TomD. At least, I am not sure what "hypethetical" people you are talking about. Your question (or at least what it is in reference to) is a mystery to me.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* I really shouldn't be doing this. I have comps next week.
Tom - The questions in the temple recommend interview are limited, and those who interview for them are not supposed to go beyond them. One of the questions is 'do you sustain the leaders of the church.' What sustain means is up for grabs. Some people undoubtedly think 'sustain' means 'accept everything they say as God's personal opinion.' Others undoubtedly think 'sustain' means 'If God wants to tell us something, they're the route he'll take.' The only answer you have to provide is 'yes' or 'no.' Then the interviewer moves on.
So, what this really comes down to is whether what the church leaders say is authoritative doctrine. There is a system laid out in the D&C for this. Under that system, the Proclaimation on the Family is not doctrine. Heck, even if it were, you could still support gay marriage and get a temple recommend, because there's a whole lot in scripture that Mormons argue about. Thus, it's perfectly possible to get a temple recommend while disagreeing with the leaders of the church on selected issues. Mormonism in practice is much more fuzzy than Mormonism in theory.
And not having a temple recommend is hardly a source of social stigma. It's extraordinarily easy to keep quiet. I know dozens of Mormons and I know the recommend status of perhaps a dozen.
quote:I'm talking about how can any individual who really believes that the church leadership speaks for God openly and confidently disagree with the church leadership on an issue they claim to have asked God about?
I could be wrong, but I don't think they've claimed to have asked God about this. Or at least, gotten an answer from God. When they do that, they state so very clearly. The last time was in 1978. So what we're left with is them stating what they believe God's will is. They're not claiming revelation. However, a lot of Mormons tend to assume proclaimations are about revelation. A lot don't. So, again, practice versus theory.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm having trouble imagining why, no matter how much else I liked about a religion, I would belong to a religion -- and still consider myself a faithful member of a religion -- that claimed direct divine revelation if I did not believe they were actually receiving such revelation. I can freely accept that such people may well exist, but their minds are a mystery to me.
Mormons play up the direct revelation thing a lot. I'm not sure why. Mormonism's never had a monopoly on personal revelation, and for my money the LDS Church in theory is a lot more about 'we have authority to administer salvific ordinances' than it is 'we have a prophet who will tell you how to vote.' Even for Joseph Smith, revelation was a lot more about clarifying doctrine than it was about the best way to build your house.
The famous Joseph Smith line is, "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves." There's a vocal minority of Mormons who want to be governed. They're, I think, missing the point.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mormonism in practice is much more fuzzy than Mormonism in theory.
This is true for most churches, IMO, and most especially the healthy ones. Inflexibility impedes reproduction.
But, then, is it NOT a "settled issue" that same-sex relationships are considered wrong by the Mormon church? Is this in fact something that perfectly "recommended" Mormons can publicly argue about without worrying that someone else will accuse them of not being a "good" Mormon?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say it is a "officially settled issue," but how one approaches disgreement with the issue is more a determinate of official actions toward someone than the disagreement itself.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, then, is it NOT a "settled issue" that same-sex relationships are considered wrong by the Mormon church?
I don't know what others have said ... my understanding is that it is a settled issue that same-sex relationships are considered wrong. I wouldn't say it is a settled issue on what should be done about it though - such as whether same-sex marriage should be made legal.
quote: Is this in fact something that perfectly "recommended" Mormons can publicly argue about without worrying that someone else will accuse them of not being a "good" Mormon?
How public is public? If we argued about it on a public forum, you can bet some members would imply that others were not good mormons, and vice versa. But I doubt anything would happen to them just for discussing it. If someone were teaching at BYU that same-sex marriage was perfectly acceptable and should be legal, and writing books about how the Church's doctrine on this was wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if some action was taken - I don't know what kind. I don't know if their temple recommend would come into question.
But again, you can believe that same-sex relationships are wrong in the sight of God and at the same time think they should be given the legal right to marry, so it would depend on what you were saying. If you were publicly demanding that the Church revise its doctrine on same-sex relationships, I doubt you could get a recommend. But the church's doctrine does leave room for discussion about the cultural aspects of it. I mean, we believe that alcohol is not for the body, and if we drink it we can't get a recommend; but that doesn't mean we're all going about calling for reinstating prohibition.
There's also the issue that you could believe the president to be a prophet and to speak for the Lord, and still not understand why the prophet says this on this particular issue (SSM). And you could be struggling to understand that and your response to it. There's always room for discussion of that sort ... it's more a trying-to-understand discussion, and not a how-can-we-get-the-prophet-to-change-his-mind discussion.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course Mormons will accuse each other of things - there are Mormons who will accuse you of not being a good Mormon if you drink Coke. But institutionally there are no sanctions for thinking, say, civil unions are the way to go.
Now both of us are playing fast and loose with our language here. 'Same sex relationships' is a vague term and it's entirely possible you picked it for that reason. Now, I think 'marriage is between a man and a woman' is edging closer to settled doctrine. The only impediment I can guess is that the validity of polygamous marriages has not been repudiated. I think the latter never will be. I could though see something along the lines of 'a marriage consists of both genders' being formally settled.
Of course, that does not preclude civil unions, and I think that these are an acceptable doctrinal middle ground.
However, that brings up the problem of the law of chastity, a temple recommend question in which chastity is defined as sexual relations outside of marriage. Again, 'sexual relations' is a vague term about which Mormons argue about, but the line under dispute is far to this side of any sort of intercourse. Of course, homosexuals can attend the temple; they simply have to be chaste, as single Mormons are. However, I am not convinced that the church will bend on this - it may accept civil unions as law, but will reserve the right to define marriages it performs.
It's entirely possible to be a participating Mormon without a temple recommend, though. I know quite a few of those.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone were teaching at BYU that same-sex marriage was perfectly acceptable and should be legal, and writing books about how the Church's doctrine on this was wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if some action was taken - I don't know what kind. I don't know if their temple recommend would come into question.
This happened to Jeffrey Nielsen. He was fired from BYU; I believe, though, he still has a recommend.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. Okay, three groups. 1)Mormons with recommends that I know about. 2)Mormons without recommends whose condition I know. 3)All other Mormons. By descending size:
3)The vast majority of Mormons I know casually; many Mormon friends who haven't mentioned that they've gone to the temple recently to me.
<Insert large gap>
1)Mormons with recommends that I know about. (Incidentally, as per above, it's not as though they walk through the halls saying, "I have a recommend;" there are no Tom-got-his-recommend parties; rather this is done through inference; ie, "I can't go to the movie tonight; I'm going to the temple.")
<slightly smaller gap>
2)Mormons without a recommend. Now, when I know this I know it because it has come up in conversations about something else or that particular Mormon's relationship to the church as a whole. This is because 1)This person has chosen to make it public or 2)This person is a close enough friend to me that we talk about things like this. One's personal recommend status is _never_ a matter for casual conversation - if it comes up it's because the individual in question has brought it up.
It's also probable that I know more marginal Mormons interested in discussing Mormonism than most people.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: that the threat of losing a Temple recommend is a mechanism used to enforce a bare minimum of doctrine (as interpreted by any given Bishop.)
What keeps you from driving recklessly? Are you worried about your own safety, or are you worried about losing your driver's license?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How? I got the impression it was a whole cloak-and-dagger affair.
New converts. Young (pre-mission) men, and young ladies. Youth.
All who are full members of the church and who serve and lead in callings. And none of whom has a temple recommend.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could you express that gratitude by avoiding using the word "church" in reference to Judaism?
Sure. And if I forget, given how incredibly often the word "church" is used in that context, please forgive me as we seek to forgive people who call users by their username.
How often it is used by whom? IME, it's you, and certain evangelical Christians of my acquaintance (none of whom are Hatrackers), who have difficulty comprehending that the world may not be made up entirely of Christians and future Christians. No one else I know seems to have this problem.
And the username thing has nothing to do with me. I have stated many times that people are welcome to refer to me -- both in person and online -- by either my real name or my username. I do generally appreciate consistency within a single post, but that is entirely due to my internal proofreader, who's a bit of a nut about these things.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is this in fact something that perfectly "recommended" Mormons can publicly argue about without worrying that someone else will accuse them of not being a "good" Mormon?
Eating chocolate means that some members won't think you're a "good" Mormon. That doesn't stop most of us, though.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Actually, to be honest, I use it all the time myself, and I'm certainly not an evangelical Christian.
It was hard for me not to see you as being overly picky, but I thought about it, and I guess I can understand your position if I substitute the word 'synagogue' for 'church' in reference to a 'church'.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the exceedingly strong association of the word (from its very origin!) with Christianity, I don't think I'm being picky.
Feel free to disagree. I don't care if you think I'm irrational, picky, etc. As long as you respect my request, what goes on in the privacy of your head is your business. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considering the exceedingly strong association of the word (from its very origin!) with Christianity, I don't think I'm being picky.
I think of it like this ... most people call adhesive bandages Band-aids. This doesn't bother most people, even though technically all adhesive bandages are not Band-aids, since it's a brand name of one particular adhesive bandage. But it probably really gets on the nerves of the Curad people. And most people have no idea they're bothering anyone or that they should call them anything else.
I have sometimes used the word "church" as synonymous with "house of worship", not meaning anything Christian by the word, just using it to mean anyplace where anything is done that is remotely similar to what happens when I go to church. I don't think everyone in the world is Christian or a Christian-in-waiting; I don't even think about the "Christianity" of that word. But when it's pointed out that synagogues are not churches because "church" is specifically a Christian word, I stop using it that way and try to remember to use more appropriate terms instead. Although I may still forget from time to time. I really think most people who do it just use it out of habit or ignorance, not even thinking of what it really means. Like "band-aids".
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Well, what if I ignored your request but understood your position. Make you feel a lot better, eh?
How would I know? Will you wear kitty ears?
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: I really think most people who do it just use it out of habit or ignorance, not even thinking of what it really means.
Agreed. Mostly ignorance, I think.
I'm attempting to reduce it. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The genericization of "church" has always bothered me a little from the opposite perspective.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess the point is, Muslims don't go to church. Jews don't go to church. Church is a Christian word and ought only to be used to describe Christian houses of worship or Christian congregations that worship together.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samarkand posted the following and it is a very good point:
“. . . However, we are not free to impose our beliefs on others. Instead, our government imposes restrictions on behavior based on harm to others: eg. drinking and driving is not ok not because God says not to, although some relgions feels he does, but because drunk driver could kill or injure themselves or others. Murder is wrong not because God says so, but because society does not function when other people are randonly killing each other. Etc.”
I can’t vouch for other Mormons but I can tell you why I support or reject any particular proposed legislation that comes along. The criteria that I almost always look at is: Will this legislation cause harm to others? Or is this a good law that will help prevent harm to others?
Whether or not there is some church doctrine about the subject is a side issue.
I don’t really give a dingo kidney whether or not someone out there is committing sin. Well, sometimes I do care but still . . . I know that sin happens. I know that there is not a whole lot I can do about it. Nor am I allowed to force anyone to behave a certain way . Freedom of choice is one of the fundamental doctrines of my church.
It is hard to overemphasize just how important this doctrine is. We teach that one of the two huge sins that caused Satan to be cast out of heaven is that he “sought to destroy the agency of man” It was so dire a sin that he is forever damned from ever progressing any further. When you consider that his stated goal was to save all mankind (which is the same goal God has) it is impossible to think of a better cause than that. Yet the WAY Satan wanted to go about saving all mankind turned that good cause into a major sin. He wanted to destroy freedom of choice.
I’m not saying this to try to get anyone to believe in that particular doctrine. I’m stating it so that you will understand that is what we believe.
So I, as a Mormon, would be way out of line to pass a law that forces someone to behave a certain way just because it bothers me that there is some sinning going on, or because I didn’t like what someone else is doing. (Even when there is no legislation involved but I just may want to force someone to not do something or to do something, I’m way out of line. A case in point is that recent Mormon mom and dad who kidnapped their of-age daughter to prevent her marriage. They committed a grave sin even though their intentions may have been good.)
So anyway, the only consideration for me is if the law will prevent someone form harming others. An extension of that is that I have to try to decide if some trend will be detrimental to society as a whole in the long run and if some kind of legislation would help to curtail that trend.
My point is that I can be a member in good standing even if I disagree with some other devout Mormon on a political issue. We can both agree, and probably do, that certain things are sins in the eyes of God and that they is set in stone, as it were. We are still allowed to disagree on whether or not anything ought to be done about it legislatively, or whether or not it would even do any good. We probably would also both agree that people are going to do pretty much what they want to anyway (just as I am going to probably hang on to my favorite sins regardless).
This is the sort of leeway that allowed me to be outspokenly opposed to a proposed humongous increase in tobacco tax in Arizona several years ago. Some of my fellow Mormons were shocked that I would do anything that would seem to support smoking. After all, I don’t even use tobacco and it is against our religion. So an extra tax like that was not going to be any skin off my nose. People shouldn’t be using tobacco anyway. Yah, well, I was opposed to the tax anyway and still am.
Just using that to illustrate my point.
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an utter side note, he's been so busy with comps he hasn't had time in ages, but I just love it when Matt posts.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I have to ask, though, Sam: let's say that you felt that a same-sex marriage ban, for whatever reason, would be bad law, regardless of your personal stance on the morality of same-sex marriages, and actively and prominently campaigned for it. Would this get you in trouble with church leadership? I can certainly understand why individuals might be able to separate issues of morality from issues of legality, but does the church recognize that distinction when pressed?
Edit: and this is one of those questions that gets asked of Catholics, too. Should Kerry have been denied communion for his political stance on abortion? If not, why not? Where is that line drawn between dogma and policy?
posted
I think that the Church would recognize such a distinction, but I can't back it up with examples of where that has happened one way or another.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My own thinking on the issue would be examples -- if any -- of pro-choice and/or pro-SSM Mormon politicians. I'm not aware of any who share these positions, but I assume there are Congressional Democrats who are also Mormon; I know about Reid, but he's vocally pro-life and thus not particularly useful as an example in this case.
Edit: BUT, now that I think about it, he actually opposed the federal anti-marriage amendment; there was a bit of a firestorm about that from Mormons, in fact, who felt (clearly erroneously, since he's presumably still in good standing; I find it hard to imagine that people wouldn't know, in this age of universal blogs, if he'd lost his recommend) that this was a betrayal of the church. So there's your example, right there. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find it hard to imagine that people wouldn't know, in this age of universal blogs, if he'd lost his recommend
Lack of imagination or willfull ignorance. I can't decide what one. The world is not the Internet and the Church would probably fall as hard on someone who discussed that happening as the losing of the recommend. There would be so few who knew for sure it wouldn't be that hard, with a little research, to find out who blogged. Even if they aren't found out, it would be considered so much conjecture - although there would always be people who believed it for their own purposes.
I just find it strange you can believe Mormons can be so secretive about basic things and not about this. It isn't impossible to find out if it did happen, I will give you that. However, it ISN'T discussed when it does - at least beyond petty gossip.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just find it strange you can believe Mormons can be so secretive about basic things and not about this.
FWIW, I don't believe Mormons are particularly secretive about basic things. But I agree with you that most discussions about someone's recommend would constitute petty gossip.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: From what I understand, Mitt Romney ran under a pro-choice banner.
If I recall correctly, he said/says that he's pro-life, but he wouldn't seek to undermine the existing laws of, what is it, Massachusetts.
I believe he's become more conservative and upfront recently about being pro-life.
He's not my problem right now, so I haven't payed much attention to him, so i could very well be wrong.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
