You think it's absurd, but you're a believer. I think it's quite reasonable. Perhaps the specifics of the "revelation" might be different, but the point is that Hinckley is viewed as speaking for the god.
Even if we (incorrectly) assume those issues are representative of the modern LDS Church, they still are not analogous to the issue at hand.
Again, it's not the specific content that's relevant, but the mere fact of continuing revelation.
As a side note, don't forget polygamy wasn't illegal when the doctrine was revealed.
If, by that, you mean that the revelation came when Smith and his followers were traveling through lands that had no official government, then, yes - I suppose that's not an inaccurate statement. However, polygamy has been illegal in the US it was a colony of England. It's been illegal almost everywhere that Christianity has been the dominant religion since even Roman times. Augustine wrote about it, in The Good of Marriage, saying "Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living."
Martin Luther believed that there wasn't any specific prohibition against it in scripture, and occasionally, some Protestant groups have tried to reinstate the practice - notably, after the Thirty Years War, the Nuerenburg Parliament declared that men could marry up to ten wives. But even Protestant doctrine has largely prohibited it on the grounds that marriage is supposed to reflect the original pairing of Adam and Eve.
But back to the point at hand, since I don't actually have a problem with polygamy, myself. I think that governments shouldn't be in the business of deciding which marriages are permissible.
As you'll notice, one of the last steps in the process is the sustaining vote of the general church body.
Ok - let's see what it says...
Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.
And, shockingly, the vote was unanimous.
You can't get much more heavy handed than that. It's like someone coming up to you, personally, and saying, "Ok, now Brandon, Gordon Hinckley, the president, the prophet, seer, and revelator of the church, a holy man who speaks with God, has said God's will is for America to 'stay the course' in Iraq (or withdraw, consider both), what do you, an upstanding, honorable, member of the church, think?"
Moreover, by 1978, the civil rights movement had already pretty much won all of its points. It's not too surprising that there was unanimous consent, so taking a vote on the issue was no risk. My guess is that that's probably true of most of the doctrinal changes. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if a "revelation" was actually contentious.
If I disagreed with something handed down in such a way, I would signify I "opposed" during the sustaining vote and would likely need to talk to local Church leaders about it.
During which time, you'd certainly be subjected to whatever pressures they could bring to bear to get you to change your mind.
Depending on the nature of the disagreement, I could be dis-fellowshipped or excommunicated - which I guess you might consider me "breaking with the Church" - or nothing could happen at all.
Nope, I wouldn't consider that to be you breaking with the church, but rather the other way around. Excommunication isn't something the communicant initiates.
My question was basically how significant the issue would have to be for you to risk excommunication. Presumably, you wouldn't risk it over something trivial, like the church prohibiting pistachio ice cream. But the question is how much you'd be willing to submit on.
How far would they have to go to get you to quit? The farther that is, the more influence they have over you. Same with Romney.
I fail to see the impact any of the above would have on my ability to be President - other than causing stress due to the press the issue received.
That the church leaders have not, to date, revealed anything that's likely to influence presidential policy may have more to do with the fact that there's never been a Mormon president than anything else. After all, there's little point in risking controversy in the church by revealing the god's plan for a Mormon homeland when you can't reasonably expect to bring it off.
Your doctrine says that you believe "that He will reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" and that you "believe in the literal gathering of Israel and the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion will be built upon the American continent". I don't find that particularly comforting when a Mormon president might find the power to pull something like that off.
Withholding a vote for fear of LDS control of the government is simply unfounded paranoia.
Maybe. Though I'd call it satisficing. People with very strong religious values have no business in secular office. Figuring out the particular structure of their religion isn't worth the payoff. Romney and Huckabee are written off for the same reason - incomprehensible religious baggage.
Add a Comment
Email This
RSS
RE: LDS church comments
As absurd as that question is, I'll answer it
You think it's absurd, but you're a believer. I think it's quite reasonable. Perhaps the specifics of the "revelation" might be different, but the point is that Hinckley is viewed as speaking for the god.
Even if we (incorrectly) assume those issues are representative of the modern LDS Church, they still are not analogous to the issue at hand.
Again, it's not the specific content that's relevant, but the mere fact of continuing revelation.
As a side note, don't forget polygamy wasn't illegal when the doctrine was revealed.
If, by that, you mean that the revelation came when Smith and his followers were traveling through lands that had no official government, then, yes - I suppose that's not an inaccurate statement. However, polygamy has been illegal in the US it was a colony of England. It's been illegal almost everywhere that Christianity has been the dominant religion since even Roman times. Augustine wrote about it, in The Good of Marriage, saying "Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living."
Martin Luther believed that there wasn't any specific prohibition against it in scripture, and occasionally, some Protestant groups have tried to reinstate the practice - notably, after the Thirty Years War, the Nuerenburg Parliament declared that men could marry up to ten wives. But even Protestant doctrine has largely prohibited it on the grounds that marriage is supposed to reflect the original pairing of Adam and Eve.
But back to the point at hand, since I don't actually have a problem with polygamy, myself. I think that governments shouldn't be in the business of deciding which marriages are permissible.
As you'll notice, one of the last steps in the process is the sustaining vote of the general church body.
Ok - let's see what it says...
And, shockingly, the vote was unanimous.
You can't get much more heavy handed than that. It's like someone coming up to you, personally, and saying, "Ok, now Brandon, Gordon Hinckley, the president, the prophet, seer, and revelator of the church, a holy man who speaks with God, has said God's will is for America to 'stay the course' in Iraq (or withdraw, consider both), what do you, an upstanding, honorable, member of the church, think?"
Moreover, by 1978, the civil rights movement had already pretty much won all of its points. It's not too surprising that there was unanimous consent, so taking a vote on the issue was no risk. My guess is that that's probably true of most of the doctrinal changes. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if a "revelation" was actually contentious.
If I disagreed with something handed down in such a way, I would signify I "opposed" during the sustaining vote and would likely need to talk to local Church leaders about it.
During which time, you'd certainly be subjected to whatever pressures they could bring to bear to get you to change your mind.
Depending on the nature of the disagreement, I could be dis-fellowshipped or excommunicated - which I guess you might consider me "breaking with the Church" - or nothing could happen at all.
Nope, I wouldn't consider that to be you breaking with the church, but rather the other way around. Excommunication isn't something the communicant initiates.
My question was basically how significant the issue would have to be for you to risk excommunication. Presumably, you wouldn't risk it over something trivial, like the church prohibiting pistachio ice cream. But the question is how much you'd be willing to submit on.
How far would they have to go to get you to quit? The farther that is, the more influence they have over you. Same with Romney.
I fail to see the impact any of the above would have on my ability to be President - other than causing stress due to the press the issue received.
That the church leaders have not, to date, revealed anything that's likely to influence presidential policy may have more to do with the fact that there's never been a Mormon president than anything else. After all, there's little point in risking controversy in the church by revealing the god's plan for a Mormon homeland when you can't reasonably expect to bring it off.
Your doctrine says that you believe "that He will reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" and that you "believe in the literal gathering of Israel and the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion will be built upon the American continent". I don't find that particularly comforting when a Mormon president might find the power to pull something like that off.
Withholding a vote for fear of LDS control of the government is simply unfounded paranoia.
Maybe. Though I'd call it satisficing. People with very strong religious values have no business in secular office. Figuring out the particular structure of their religion isn't worth the payoff. Romney and Huckabee are written off for the same reason - incomprehensible religious baggage.
View Full Discussion