The Official "Ask A Mormon" Thread

[Archie Moses]

https://www.challengemin.org/moon.html

Joseph Smith said the moon was inhabited by men?
Brigham Young said the moon and the sun was inhabited by men?

in 1961 President Joseph Fielding Smith said

"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man’s sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it…
The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

Not everything they said was doctrine. In fact, a lot was just opinions of man.

 

[Archie Moses]

Lot,who was the most righteous man in the land, slept with his daughters. David, we know what he did. Peter, denied Christ.


Man gonna be man which is an enemy to god.

Thanks,

Adam.

 

[Siro]

Lot,who was the most righteous man in the land, slept with his daughters. David, we know what he did. Peter, denied Christ.


Man gonna be man which is an enemy to god.

Thanks,

Adam.

It's been a while since I read my Bible, but didn't Lot's daughters get their father ****faced drunk, and then they had their way with him? Don't blame the victim!

 

[Dr. Jones]

It's been a while since I read my Bible, but didn't Lot's daughters get their father ****faced drunk, and then they had their way with him? Don't blame the victim!

Okay fine. Lot got **** faced drunk.

 

[green]

This is why I resigned membership over the issue and not you. That's my moral choice to make.

Sister Kelly's situation is not ordinary, nor is she a standard "apostate." She is person who very plainly identifies as Mormon and wants to be a member of the mainline church. She is not fighting them, they are saying that there is no place for people like her. It is an act of exclusion and rejection of an individual, not of a person choosing to go their own way. It was cruel, uncalled for, and intolerant of an organization that makes it a standard practice every month to give Brother and Sister Yahoo yokel an open-mic to say whatever they want. Sister Kelly is a person who has a principled, scriptually-based, idea as to why the Mormon church can and should be more progressive on gender issues than other denominations. Concepts such as a Heavenly Mother or a sexless Heavenly Father (there is some confusion and debate on this point) are nearly unique to LDS experience. Saying the Book of Mormon or the D&C isn't true is apostasy. Saying that they are true and support big and new ideas is a healthy exercise of faith.

If you swap her positions regarding women for the equivalent position involving african americans 30 years ago, your position would be in full support of excommunicating black persons who wanted to remain in the church for openly agitating for the priesthood. This is quite literally the same argument: the rules are the rules and they are given by revelation.

The history of the church reveals it isn't that simple. Rules change. Leaders are imperfect. Many of the leaders have been, to put it bluntly, raging dicks. We can try to paper over those things but they are truths. There simply isn't another way to explain how the church did so many dreadfully wrong things in the past. In some sense all institutions run by old white dudes are going to be conservative. The LDS Church is especially conservative. But what happened to Kate Kelly was abhorrent and removed any sense I had that any God I would want to worship or even recognize could be engaged in any way with the LDS faith. Certainly Thomas S. Monson has no claim to the title of Prophet.

While I do agree with some of what you're saying, the simple fact is she tried to change the rules.

The church said no thanks, you can stay and play by our rules.

She declined, they kicked her out.

Pretty simple. The Church makes the rules for their organization. If you play by them, you should expect to be removed from that organization. That's life.

 

[sirkickyass]

While I do agree with some of what you're saying, the simple fact is she tried to change the rules.

The church said no thanks, you can stay and play by our rules.

She declined, they kicked her out.

Pretty simple. The Church makes the rules for their organization. If you play by them, you should expect to be removed from that organization. That's life.

I think if you look at her materials, you'll find that by far the most common thing she asked for was for church leadership to pray to God about it.

 

[babe]

This is why I resigned membership over the issue and not you. That's my moral choice to make.

Sister Kelly's situation is not ordinary, nor is she a standard "apostate." She is person who very plainly identifies as Mormon and wants to be a member of the mainline church. She is not fighting them, they are saying that there is no place for people like her. It is an act of exclusion and rejection of an individual, not of a person choosing to go their own way. It was cruel, uncalled for, and intolerant of an organization that makes it a standard practice every month to give Brother and Sister Yahoo yokel an open-mic to say whatever they want. Sister Kelly is a person who has a principled, scriptually-based, idea as to why the Mormon church can and should be more progressive on gender issues than other denominations. Concepts such as a Heavenly Mother or a sexless Heavenly Father (there is some confusion and debate on this point) are nearly unique to LDS experience. Saying the Book of Mormon or the D&C isn't true is apostasy. Saying that they are true and support big and new ideas is a healthy exercise of faith.

If you swap her positions regarding women for the equivalent position involving african americans 30 years ago, your position would be in full support of excommunicating black persons who wanted to remain in the church for openly agitating for the priesthood. This is quite literally the same argument: the rules are the rules and they are given by revelation.

The history of the church reveals it isn't that simple. Rules change. Leaders are imperfect. Many of the leaders have been, to put it bluntly, raging dicks. We can try to paper over those things but they are truths. There simply isn't another way to explain how the church did so many dreadfully wrong things in the past. In some sense all institutions run by old white dudes are going to be conservative. The LDS Church is especially conservative. But what happened to Kate Kelly was abhorrent and removed any sense I had that any God I would want to worship or even recognize could be engaged in any way with the LDS faith. Certainly Thomas S. Monson has no claim to the title of Prophet.

For those of you too disinterested to go back and check what Kicky said, here it is from the horse's mouth. The bolded part.

Kicky has to be operating on about a half-watt bulb to not know what I'm talking about, when my point was addressed to to what he said.

But, I'm sure, he's turned out that bulb by now.

Good job Kicky. You're so smart. You don't even know what you're talking about.

 

[babe]

I think if you look at her materials, you'll find that by far the most common thing she asked for was for church leadership to pray to God about it.

Someone who feels the LDS scriptures can be interpreted to make the LDS church "more progressive on gender issues" than Bible-based(self-declared though that may be) churches?

The main problem the LDS Church has been fighting for over a hundred years is the fears, misapprehensions, and charges of innovation in doctrines which have been levied by those churches. The LDS Church wants to be more like them.

Actually, there may be elements of the leadership that really want to be progressive, but believe it's better to make progress gradually and thus avoid a lot of heated contentions.

My personal reason for having no issue about her excommunication follows from what you said about her "principled beliefs" trending towards empowering the LDS "faithful" towards "progressive gender issues", which I took as LGBT sorts of issues.

I don't think the LDS or any other church. . . . or for that matter. . . . social engineers with dreams of utopia or convenience for commerce. . . . should be fundamentally more influential than the "collective wisdom" or "social notions" of individuals. government by the people, man.

Too many people want a church with the power to change people to their ideal. Too many people want a government with the power to force people to do is what deemed "right" according to some pinhead idealist. well, even some supersmart practical genius. same dif.

Someone who's bothering the LDS leaders and telling them what to pray for, and what they should do. . . . gotta be a "progressive" who also wants the government to fix everything.. . . . their way.

Nah, Kicky, I might not know who Kate is, but I know why you like her. Ring her up, and tell her you're praying for a way to make God into something you and her both could agree on. You could be the next "Prophet".

I understand the malaise mainstream Christians have about progressive Mormons prattling about some utopia, some "Zion Community". It's fundamentally different from holding a specific traditon sacrosanct.

My fundamental misgiving about Mormonism is the fear that it was started, and led, by "progressives" with a "brave new world" in mind. Most religions probably start with notions like that in some way, but when the main problems are continuity and propagation of the concepts, it will quickly become "conservative".

A hundred years from now, there will be a lot of smart youngsters hooting at your current ideas as "conservative", I suppose. But it is a legitimate question people are entitled to. . . . If it wasn't true in the first place, why should we hold it sacred?.

Kate was like the Israelites of old who tried to steady the Ark, when according to the tradition, God had forbidden anyone but the designated priests to touch the Ark.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

How do we interpret the inadvertent disclosure that the regular activity rate of members is 36%?

https://brucefey.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/lds-spokesman-breaks-down-membership.html

Interesting. I saw the article after some of the numbers had been removed, and wondered what had actually been removed.

Anyway, assuming the 36% is correct, that's a bit higher than the 30% number you and one or two others were throwing around (and I was disputing for lack of evidence) in this thread: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...ence-Fall-2013&p=668832&viewfull=1#post668832, and a little less than the 40% that was my very rough estimate a couple of days later, here: https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?19964-LDS-church-membership-statistics

Seems plausible. Would be very interesting to see a country-by-country breakdown.

One thing to note in trying to draw conclusions from this is that the Church does not define "active" members however you want to call them as coming weekly. I believe I have heard it as once a month, so if you are going by a weekly number it is probably safe to extrapolate the once a month numbers to be higher.

Just something that caught my attention.

 

[babe]

So, anyway, folks. . . .

In my own time I got those calls because some folks thought my ideas were out of line with Church stands. Only rather than take the position of telling them what they should do, I said. . ..

"Tell you what. Me being me and thinking about things in perhaps original ways, I realize my being in the meetings might get controversial. I'm gonna take a break from it, if you don't mind.

"And you folks, when you get done adjusting the official Church doctrines, look me up and tell me what you've decided, OK? "

 

[green]

One thing to note in trying to draw conclusions from this is that the Church does not define "active" members however you want to call them as coming weekly. I believe I have heard it as once a month, so if you are going by a weekly number it is probably safe to extrapolate the once a month numbers to be higher.

Just something that caught my attention.

Once a month is "active."

Sweet.

 

[Gameface]

Someone who feels the LDS scriptures can be interpreted to make the LDS church "more progressive on gender issues" than Bible-based(self-declared though that may be) churches?

The main problem the LDS Church has been fighting for over a hundred years is the fears, misapprehensions, and charges of innovation in doctrines which have been levied by those churches. The LDS Church wants to be more like them.

Actually, there may be elements of the leadership that really want to be progressive, but believe it's better to make progress gradually and thus avoid a lot of heated contentions.

My personal reason for having no issue about her excommunication follows from what you said about her "principled beliefs" trending towards empowering the LDS "faithful" towards "progressive gender issues", which I took as LGBT sorts of issues.

I don't think the LDS or any other church. . . . or for that matter. . . . social engineers with dreams of utopia or convenience for commerce. . . . should be fundamentally more influential than the "collective wisdom" or "social notions" of individuals. government by the people, man.

Too many people want a church with the power to change people to their ideal. Too many people want a government with the power to force people to do is what deemed "right" according to some pinhead idealist. well, even some supersmart practical genius. same dif.

Someone who's bothering the LDS leaders and telling them what to pray for, and what they should do. . . . gotta be a "progressive" who also wants the government to fix everything.. . . . their way.

Nah, Kicky, I might not know who Kate is, but I know why you like her. Ring her up, and tell her you're praying for a way to make God into something you and her both could agree on. You could be the next "Prophet".

I understand the malaise mainstream Christians have about progressive Mormons prattling about some utopia, some "Zion Community". It's fundamentally different from holding a specific traditon sacrosanct.

My fundamental misgiving about Mormonism is the fear that it was started, and led, by "progressives" with a "brave new world" in mind. Most religions probably start with notions like that in some way, but when the main problems are continuity and propagation of the concepts, it will quickly become "conservative".

A hundred years from now, there will be a lot of smart youngsters hooting at your current ideas as "conservative", I suppose. But it is a legitimate question people are entitled to. . . . If it wasn't true in the first place, why should we hold it sacred?.

Kate was like the Israelites of old who tried to steady the Ark, when according to the tradition, God had forbidden anyone but the designated priests to touch the Ark.

Hey babe, every man creates God in his own image.

It's never been any other way.

God is a human construct.