But if Mormon God is perfect, why will his inspired action need to be clarified?
Because the devil is always in the details. Do you think that (A...as in a one time event) revelation would fill ALL of those in? And by devil in the details I mean that every unknown or possible conundrum or problem isn't going to be spelled out in ONE revelation/policy statement. There are always things to iron out. We're working with people here, remember. It's not a one size fits all even though the original policy change seems to be rather reductionist. There are always things to be fleshed out.
mentalgymnast wrote:Individuals can be stupid at times. All of us. My query has to do more with a collective body of 15 men who have been honed and challenged throughout their lives in the church. Intelligent churchmen. Each one of them, as an individual, can do something dumb or stupid at times. It's part of being human. But we're talking about all of them...collectively...doing something REALLY stupid, from the point of view of folks that are disgruntled. What is the likelihood of that?
Now, they could ALL be mistaken in their view that they are speaking the mind and will of the Lord in this matter...but then that leads us back to collective stupidity(which is highly unlikely) and/or groupthink based on false premises. I suppose that 'groupthink' could be another option. But then we get into the whole WHY thing again. To line their pockets? To serve God? Etc.
And that becomes a personal decision that each of us has to make.
"Collective stupidity" isn't unlikely--it is expected with groups like the FP + Q12. These guys are structured as if they were purposefully trying to promote groupthink. Why be surprised when it happens?
With regards to why, I would speculate that the basic impulse was boundary maintenance. Now that mainstream accepts same-sex marriage, the church wanted to emphasize that they won't tolerate it. Without thinking about the implications all of the way through, somebody proposed that these families should be treated like polygamous families, groupthink prevented a deeper look at the implications, and it was made the sealed word of God by His appointed leaders before anyone looked at it critically and had the guts to point out the obvious problems and inconsistencies. And now they are painted into a corner.
Sure. I'm sure boundary maintenance is playing a part in this decision to tighten things up. But to think that they didn't think about the possible implications? That puts them back into "stupid" mode. And I am not convinced that they are stupid.
mentalgymnast wrote: Was the FP in 1949 stupid as a collective body? Well, they were apparently wrong...and if they were wrong they were either uninspired or as BRM later said...they were speaking according to the light and knowledge that they had.
What person who has ever lived on this planet has not been speaking according to the light and knowledge that he or she had? Walk me though the difference between an insight and a banal truism.
But if Mormon God is perfect, why will his inspired action need to be clarified?
Because the devil is always in the details. Do you think that (A...as in a one time event) revelation would fill ALL of those in? And by devil in the details I mean that every unknown or possible conundrum or problem isn't going to be spelled out in ONE revelation/policy statement. There are always things to iron out. We're working with people here, remember. It's not a one size fits all even though the original policy change seems to be rather reductionist. There are always things to be fleshed out.
Regards, MG
That's a perfect response, MG. If God didn't do it, the Devil did. It's hard to find an argument against that logic. When you have a God of good and a God of evil, one of the two of them have to be responsible for everything.
If a policy or commandment turns out to be wrong, it's either human error or that other God, Satan screwing things up.
You just can't lose with that explanation (unless you are trying to be intellectually honest).
By the way, intellectually honesty is kinda fun. You should give it a try.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
You're apparently operating under the assumption that they misspoke in the recent policy change. That hasn't been shown to be the case...even though you may disagree with the policy and its implications. I'm hoping for some clarification that will 'flesh in' some of the empty areas that are presenting some conundrums for some people.
Are you 'on board' with the the FP describing SSM as a sinful practice? If so, you may have to cut them a bit more slack. OTOH, if you think they are dead wrong on the first point (SSM-sin) you're going to be more likely to see the associated problems connected with children of SSM's as being insurmountable. OTOH, it seems that if we're giving the benefit of a doubt to the FP that they are right on SSM being a sin, we may look a bit more kindly on their attempts to find a middle ground as they are considering the question, "What about the children?"
I have a question wrote: Please can you quote an example of a between-the-lines grey area that will need clarifying?
What happens to a child in a situation where a mother and father divorce and the mother goes into a lesbian SSM. Or visa versa...dad goes into a SSM relationship. Child goes with mom and she either does or doesn't remarry a straight man. What about the child? Or on the other side, the child goes with the two daddies and mom works out a joint custody agreement with dad. Her wishes? Or simple straight line policy?
There are a number of gray area situations that have come up online in my reading. The policy doesn't seem to fill in those gaps.
I suppose that you are saying that there is NO need of clarification? Even with all the questions that have come up?
I think Analytics nailed it again. I can't even imagine what the groupthink among the fifteen is like, it's got to be a case study that business schools would pay hundreds of thousands to get their hands on. No one rises through the ranks and gets even close to brethren without being a yes-man's yes man. Add to that something you yourself have told us with stories about how the brethren speak of the general membership in private. They don't respect the membership in the slightest, and probably for good reason. I'm sure not one of them actually believes he's an apostle or that the Church is true in the way the typical TBM believes it, but I do think they likely believe in God and in the way of life God has prescribed through the white middle-class family scenario of the fifties with an aristocracy like them protecting social order and setting the example. And all for a hefty fee. The Saints have always just dealt with what the brethren dictate and even as late as the clarification note to SPs shows how full of themselves they are. "We invite you..." The brethren are always inviting people as they lay down the law, to do exactly as they say or suffer the consequences. The consequences are only imaginary, and actually involve a net material benefit to the member's life in terms of money and time. The brethren don't actually think the members are capable in general of thinking for themselves. They are probably right, but this even is getting as close to testing their belief as anything I've ever witnessed.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Darth J wrote: This is why mentalgymnast has been praying five times a day in the direction of Teryl's house, hoping he will speak and end this uncertainty.
?
His name hasn't crossed my mind...until you mentioned it.
Let's ponderize the fact that in order to demonstrate what official LDS doctrine is, you went to the FAIR wiki.
There are a number of gray area situations that have come up online in my reading. The policy doesn't seem to fill in those gaps.
I suppose that you are saying that there is NO need of clarification? Even with all the questions that have come up?
In summary, you're saying that they are not dumb, that they carefully thought this through for a long time, that they foresaw the consequences, and they are receiving telepathic communications from the Creator of the Universe, but it didn't occur to them to address obvious contingencies in the official handbook that tells local leaders what to do.
Do you think that (A...as in a one time event) revelation would fill ALL of those in? And by devil in the details I mean that every unknown or possible conundrum or problem isn't going to be spelled out in ONE revelation/policy statement. There are always things to iron out. We're working with people here, remember. It's not a one size fits all even though the original policy change seems to be rather reductionist. There are always things to be fleshed out.
It's hard to find an argument against that logic. When you have a God of good and a God of evil, one of the two of them have to be responsible for everything.