Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Thousands Leave the LDS
Now you might have missed this news, what with the attacks in Paris and the childishness in the universities, but breaking news: The Church of LDS believes homosexuality sinful. Gasp! Who knew such beliefs lurked deep in their ways? Oh wait, everyone. Still, last week, that didn’t stop a few thousand from making a scene over a recent policy: the church will not baptize children of same-sex couples until they turn 18 and denounce same-sex marriage. So of course my social network feed exploded in outrage, of which I’d estimate 10 percent came from actual Mormons.
The latest news is that recently a few thousand made a public stand to quit the church, with at least 1,500 showing up in person, and another 2,000 (approximately) sending in legal representation to affect the same. (Side note: my lovely wife Amanda is unimpressed by sending your lawyer to submit your resignation. As she knows, you just need write a letter saying that you’re out.)
In my skepticism, I’d wager that few if any of those making this stand are seriously active in the church at all. I have a good friend who is very active in the “Ordain Women” movement and publicly denounced this decision by the church, but she remains equally active in her church. This likely was just a convenient excuse for those leaving to do so while making oneself look important.
The church responded, expressing that these individuals should reconsider this decision as there would be eternal consequences. This was met by mockery from the social progressives. “When threatening people with eternal damnation doesn’t work anymore, you know you’ve lost them.” Again, this doesn’t impress my lovely wife any, as she received similar warnings when she wrote that she was leaving the church. Naturally, leaving the LDS because one has converted to mainstream evangelical Christianity is less exciting (no colorful rainbow flags or news coverage), but the message was essentially the same: “Reconsider!”
I’ve never been Mormon, and I disagree quite a bit with the Church of Latter Day Saints, but here I turn and stand in their defense for a moment. Rather than trying to divide, the church is actually trying to consider all involved while remaining true to their doctrine. “Family is Forever” is a major concept within the church, so pitting children at the age of eight against their same-sex parents creates problems in many ways.
This policy is similar to that when dealing with children of Muslims: don’t cause familial strife. Wait until the child is of majority age and allow them to make the decision then. As for the “threats of eternal damnation” – well those are hardly such. Those religions that believe in the hereafter also tend to believe that one’s actions now will have consequences in one’s afterlife. The reply is a compassionate warning: don’t just consider the present, consider eternity. Understanding that there are rather nasty consequences for apostasy according to their beliefs, it’d be far crueler to say, “Okay, bye guys. Enjoy the Outer Darkness!”
That doesn’t matter to the social progressive. When you’re on the right side of history, you don’t have to argue or even listen to others. You just get to demand everyone embrace your ideals right now. Like the Huffington Post, you know that things are far more complex and that it takes smart, enlightened Social Progressives to figure things out. We religious types just need to take a back seat and let them drive.
Of interesting note is the second bullet point: How is the lay leader of a local Mormon congregation to make this determination when courts and lawyers find [shared custody] challenging?
For decades social progressives have told us that they have a better way, but they have taken a simple concept like marriage and made it so complex that it now supposedly requires lawyers, judges, and associated experts to puzzle out just what is a family and who is a parent. This is the aftermath of no-fault divorce, cohabitation, and shared custody. We can only expect more headaches and issues with same-sex marriage. And we have a bevy of legal experts and politicians in the wings ready to sweep in and confuse the issue even more, and then tell us that we’re too inexpert to understand the real complexities of what makes a family.
In our debates over same-sex marriage, I have stated that if a word can mean anything it will soon mean nothing. We’re finding that marriage and family as a cultural and social institution are quickly approaching nothing, and it’s the legal carrion crows that are picking over the remains. Only in the religious sense will those words maintain a sense of meaning. That is why the social progressives attack the attempts of religious leaders to negotiate and deliberate this morass.
Published in Marriage, Religion & Philosophy
Well, actually, if they just stopped going, people would notice. We all have “callings,” ie. assignments within the congregation to help run the ward and serve others. If we just stopped serving in that calling, it would leave a hole. And each congregation (ward or branch) is kept small enough that we all know each other well, and people are missed when they stop coming. Also, every member on the rolls has home teachers and/or visiting teachers. These are ward members (we almost all serve in this capacity) who visit at least once a month to serve and support members and families, temporally and spiritually. It’s a way to make sure no one falls between the cracks, and that needs and difficulties can be addressed. Of course, no one is required to admit home or visiting teachers, but the default position is that they try to come unless asked not to.
Those who request that their names be removed from the rolls are saying that they want no more communication from the Church. No home or visiting teachers, no concerned calls from the bishop or other members, no affiliation at all — they are cutting their ties. It is a very sad thing, in my opinion. I have shed tears over dear friends who have taken this step — but it is their choice, and we still love them.
I don’t agree with this assessment personally, but that’s the argument Jan Ships, historian of Mormonism, makes. The Book of Mormon is called “another testament of Jesus Christ”, and that’s what it is. But of course, it does have some theological implications. I would say it supports the New Testament, though, rather than adding basically a new, higher law as the NT does.
Sometimes we notice. In most congregations there are a lot of people on the rolls who have drifted away and that nobody knows. They are supposed to get home teachers to visit them every month, but realistically that doesn’t always happen. And of course, they have free will. No one is going to force anyone to come to church.
Personally, I don’t see Herbert’s questions as attacks or criticisms. They are valid questions, and there are answers. I would much rather that, if people have questions, they do us the courtesy to ask. Otherwise, in the interest of “being polite,” they may be harboring misconceptions or reaching conclusions without having enough information. So ask away, Herbert. We can handle it.
No. And I did not say that. Or imply that. I was trying to say, without provoking Herbert or anyone, that the argument that it is OK to essentially “attack” (via criticism/challenge) the religions of members of Ricochet simply because a religion and or its religious members might be trying to impose their tenets, moral code on me is an empty argument in part because of some countering/balancing mechanisms that are in place, therefore, there’s no threat. And it follows, the offered argument is not an acceptable excuse/reason (in my opinion) to be unduly provocative and spark discord.
However … as you effectively pointed out, it is appropriate for persons/organizations to advocate for their moral code. I wonder, does the form that the advocating takes matter? If it doesn’t, I’m guessing anyone could argue condescension, unduly critical comments and provocative challenges are just forms of advocating for a point of view. I’ll leave this kind of fun to you guys/gals. Let the cat fights begin. I’ll just sit here and watch the entertainment, waiting for the “boring, repetitive, and tense” card to be played <smiling)
Returning to OP topic now. :-)
Edit: Forgot to add. Not pointing fingers. Please, I am not saying Herbert himself engaged in any of the above. We were conversing. I made an observation, asked a question; he provided his point of view.
Had to scroll back to see what the context was here…. I think I was responding more to Herbert than to you, TT. I understood that you were making these points in your initial comment.
In Matthew Jesus tells us the story of a woman who was married to seven men, in succession. When asked who that woman would be married to in the next life, (Matt 22:29-30) Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”
I have to assume that these were validly contracted marriages as viewed through the lens of Jewish law. Each brother tried to create progeny for the eldest brother who had died. Yet not one of them would be her husband in the world to come. Which sounds rather like Jesus as the bridegroom at his wedding feast. One groom, one bride.
We certainly have different understandings of this passage and of scripture at large.
Agreed, DT.
I suppose most regular people of any Christian denomination are prone to fantasizing about family members in heaven. Indeed, many people are incapable of imagining a heaven without a beloved spouse or relative there. But passages like this paint a different picture, and so throw doubt on the exact status of biological family ties in heaven. I love my husband, but I still picture the Heavenly Bridegroom as Christ.
DT and MFR, I feel really bad for people who put a lifetime of blood, sweat, tears and love into a marriage relationship for 40-50 years just to have it dissolved at the death of either spouse. My marriage is not perfect but it gets better every day and I treasure it more than anything except my relationship with Christ. And, as fulfilling as it is in this life of trials and weaknesses, I know it will be so much better in the next life.
Look, either Christ gave Peter the power to bind on earth and in Heaven or he didn’t. Why wouldn’t this apply to the second most important relationship we will ever have? (Our relationship with Christ being the first)
Well, I always interpreted that passage about neither marrying or being given in marriage as relating to sex and reproduction. I seriously doubt that interpersonal love and friendship would stop in heaven. God made a friend for Adam, because it was not good that he would be alone. Why would it matter to whom the woman in the parable was married outside of who she would make babies with?
If no one is making babies, no need for marriage.
As often happens, the passage you cite and the one DT cites leave a less-than-clear picture about what will happen to us in the life to come. Both passages are in there. How do we reconcile both?
Maybe we’re supposed to be content with the mystery.
Perhaps. But if my marriage is sealed for time and all eternity and I’m wrong I’m no worse off than the couple who were married til death do you part. OTH, there’s no way people who are only married for this life only will have a valid marriage contract in the next.
I’m not guessing on this, BTW, I know marriage can be eternal the same way we know any religious truth – the only way – through the power of the Holy Ghost.
Ok. Good. Thanks. I really do enjoy reading the discussions on religion … when they are informative and thoughtful exchanges, because I am fairly curious. It’s the other stuff that makes me a little crazy.
I am quite familiar with the new testament and no where in that series of documents did I read that Peter bound married people from this life into eternity. Not in Acts, not in Peter’s catholic epistles.
Given that there was by LDS reckoning a gap of about 17 centuries of apostasy from the death of the apostle until Joseph Smith, I don’t believe that Peter was in a position to give Joseph this new revelation. So, if you have this position, it was received from someone other than Peter.
I had a friend who had been a sister. She had the books. I thought highly of the LDS having admired a number of Mormons, so I read them. I did not find myself convinced. Morally in most areas we are very similar. Theologically we are not. What you are trying to promote here is one of those areas where we are profoundly different in our beliefs. There is a reason that Paul noted that a widow could marry again. Her previous marriage died with the death of her husband. That is consistent with Jesus’ pronouncement in Matthew. In eternity, the marriage vow contracted here is no longer binding.
They get their three minutes of fame. Most of them will try to milk it for a bit more as time goes by.
Well, as a Catholic I am from the “created-from-scratch beings.” We do not see it as an imperfect manufacturing job, rather we see it as God giving us a command or covenant which we could obey, or which we could disobey and reap the consequences of that disobedience. The story goes that we (corporately through the progenitor of the human race, Adam) took the path of disobedience, and reaped the consequences. Hence, original sin and its outworking throughout human history; and death. Per Paul, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
He made us to be with Him, but giving us free will permitted us to arrive at our side of this decision. We could say yes or no, and we said no. He’s been cleaning up after us ever since.
A divine Being left heaven and became a man born of a virgin to undo what we had done, for the love of all of His creation. We call His love for His creation the Passion.
So what was the binding power that Christ gave Peter? What was it for?
Let’s say you and I are twins born to the same parents and raised the same way. You turn out to be a God fearing man who keeps the commandments, works hard and generally lives a righteous life. I, on the other hand, rebel from the start, am a bad citizen, in and out of prison most of my life and just a nasty, evil person.
Why did God make you so much better than me since he made us both from scratch? Why didn’t he give me a better character?
If your position is that God made a perfect people factory and then Adam hit the wrong switch so it started pumping out bad people why do some obey and some don’t? There has to be a reason why some people are generally obedient and some aren’t.
Pithy phrase, “by the power of the Holy Spirit.” A lot of people of varying beliefs posit that phrase as a justification for what “they” believe, whether anyone else recognizes it or not.
When two conflicting sets of beliefs crash into each other, say about how long marriage is intended to last, each party can specify that they know this positively by yanking out the Third Person of God and using Him to justify their conflicting positions. So one party says that God told him so, and the other party can state with equal authority that God told him differently.
When you noted that Peter was given the right to bind or loose on earth and that heaven would accede to this, you were applying it to marriage. When I noted that no where in the New Testament did Peter bind marriage into heaven, I am then offered the Holy Spirit as a guarantor of marriages sealed in the temple.
Authority. Who does it belong to? Peter? The Holy Spirit? You?
Ah, now you are getting to why I say Mormons are not monotheists. Monolatrists (only worshiping one God) certainly, but there are more gods in the pipeline.
I reject the choice you present. I believe people are made by the biological process set in motion by God, but corrupted by sin. People are sometimes born deranged and unable to understand reality because their brain is damaged, and for their entire life they cannot even comprehend a relationship with God. The process is horribly broken.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 553. The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after His resurrection: “Feed My sheep.” The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only to whom He specifically entrusted the keys of the Kingdom.
You start from the wrong premise.
Your first paragraph reminded me of the parable of the prodigal.
“Why did God make you so much better than me since he made us both from scratch? Why didn’t he give me a better character?” This sounds like an automaton, not a human person. You might as well ask why Adam chose to disobey.
“If your position is that God made a perfect people factory and then Adam hit the wrong switch so it started pumping out bad people why do some obey and some don’t?” A straw man argument. It did not work in the previous paragraph and does not work here.
Try again?
Ok. Last question; If God made us how is He not responsible for our character and hence every decision we make?
Why did a perfect God create an imperfect process or at least a process that could be corrupted?
Since God made Adam shouldn’t you ask Him why Adam chose to disobey? (my last question in the previous post was a Peter Robinson last question ;)
Free will. An incorruptible system would prevent free will. Freedom requires risk of doing the wrong thing.
Free agency is, I believe, the term used by the Mormons. Free will is the term used by the Catholics. He made for Himself but wants us to freely choose Him. Ergo, we are free, including free to fail based on our choices.
But you already knew that.
Moreover, we’re made for theosis – “a transformative process whose goal is likeness to or union with God.” A God who creates creatures free to not only choose Him, but also free to grow into communion with Him, would create beings not only capable of sin (turning from God), but also beings who growth isn’t done by the time they come into existence. It’s just that we don’t mean theosis as literally becoming another God – the likeness is one of communion, not identity.