Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon — Page 29

Sounds like quite a guy. Is the role of a Mormon president comparable to that of the Pope? Or are they only superficially similar?

I’d say they are quite comparable. We both see our respective leaders as God’s spokesperson on earth. Our president is our prophet.

The Twelve Apostles gather in holy vestments for what is known as the Arm of the Lord. They take turns arm wrestling until one reigns as champion. This is followed by a chess championship, round robin-style, known as the Mind of God. Finally, they hold a pole vaulting exercise called the Leap of Faith. Whoever scores best among the three events is declared to be the one chosen by God and becomes the next prophet.

Actually, there is a nice, orderly process.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/additional-resource/succession-in-the-presidency-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900006782/how-the-lds-church-chooses-its-new-president.html

Interestingly, succession is one of my favorite topics, for while it is orderly today, when our first prophet was martyred, there was a great deal of confusion and some schism. I love studying the schismatic groups and the routes they followed. However, only the Salt Lake City-based church has a substantial following. Next would be the Community of Christ, who believed our first prophet’s son, Joseph Smith III, should succeed his father. They have followed a very different path to the present day and hardly resemble us in any fashion at this point. While my church is approaching 16 million members, theirs only has roughly 250,000.

darth_ender said:

I’d say they are quite comparable. We both see our respective leaders as God’s spokesperson on earth. Our president is our prophet.

I didn’t know the Mormons have such a person.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Interesting. So the Quorum of the Twelve (or Fourteen at that point?) could decide not to reorganize the presidency and they themselves lead the church without a First President?

Yes. When Joseph Smith first died, the Church was led by the Twelve for three years. For the next few successions, there were relatively long interim periods where the Twelve would lead. Beginning with Lorenzo Snow at the turn of the 20th Century, reorganizing the First Presidency became a much quicker process.

I will say this, as the articles don’t make it too clear: the next prophet has always been the president of the Quorum of the Twelve, but theoretically they could pick any member of that quorum. Also, the counselors have most often (by far) come from that quorum (thus explaining your Quorum of Fourteen point), but they do not need to. A president could pick any Melchizedek priesthood holder to be his counselors.

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

I’d say they are quite comparable. We both see our respective leaders as God’s spokesperson on earth. Our president is our prophet.

I didn’t know the Mormons have such a person.

Only the devil can time travel back to say that over and over.

Love it, MFM! 😃

JEDIT: fixed the image.

I am not seeing the image.

Fixed it.

Regarding the NYT article, I find it notoriously inaccurate, unrepresentative, and sensationalist. Does it dwell on any of his good deeds or contributions? Not much until it first “clears the air” of all the controversial topics. It primarily focuses on what it sees as his and the Church’s faults and shortcomings, obviously due to their contradiction to the beliefs of the writer.

I can address a few items here briefly.

“Facing vociferous demands to recognize same-sex marriage, and weathering demonstrations at church headquarters by Mormon women pleading for the right to be ordained as priests, Mr. Monson did not bend. Teachings holding homosexuality to be immoral, bans on sexual intercourse outside male-female marriages, and an all-male priesthood would remain unaltered.”

These remain true, but the article does not mention the Church’s advocacy for legislation in Utah that outlawed discrimination against homosexuals. It does not mention that the majority of Christian and other faiths believe sex outside of marriage to be a sin. It does not mention how the Church has repeatedly advocated for women’s rights or addressed the nature of male/female roles in the world.

From The Family: A Proclamation to the World:

“Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

This proclamation goes to great length to describe what we believe God has intended: not that men and women are inequal, but that their roles are different. Yes, it’s old-fashioned to modern ears, but we do not believe it to be discriminatory or disrespectful. Just different. During the height of the Ordain Women movement, the Church even addressed it in public church talks from its highest leaders.

What is interesting is that the article paints a picture of huge mobs criticizing the Church’s stance. While there are those outside the Church making such demands and criticisms, the majority within the Church, both men and women, oppose such a move. Interestingly, men within the Church actually favored giving women the priesthood more often than women did.

“Some Mormons faced sanctions for questioning church positions on women’s roles. Kate Kelly, a feminist Mormon lawyer, was excommunicated on a charge of apostasy in 2014 after founding the organization Ordain Women.”

Yes, chronologically it took place after forming the organization. But it also took place after repeated efforts to correct what we believe was a false teaching. Very seldom does an individual get excommunicated immediately, even when teaching things contrary to our doctrine. Repeated efforts are made to correct the behavior, and only after repeated defiance does an individual get excommunicated.

From NYT:

"Although the church officially abandoned plural marriages in 1890, it was a defiantly polygamous theocracy in the mid-19th century. In a 2014 teaching, ‘Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo,’ the church said that Joseph Smith, the church founder, had married as many as 40 women, some of them already married. It said that Smith was a reluctant polygamist, agreeing to multiple marriages only after an angel threatened him with a sword.

“Some critics, said that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had previously contended that Smith had been happily married to only one woman, and that the new teaching — in the words of the website OnceDelivered.net, which identified itself as an expression of the Baptist faith — had used Scripture to ‘address the inconvenient truth of Smith’s polygamy.’”

This is probably the most blatant falsehood in the article, as our church has long admitted that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. I mentioned the Community of Christ recently. This organization was once known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It was once a far more conservative organization, and it split with my church largely because its adherents believed that Brigham Young and the other Twelve Apostles instituted polygamy on their own without Joseph Smith’s sanction. They have only recently taken a more neutral viewpoint on what was once absolute doctrine: Joseph Smith never had more than one wife. There has never been a time when we did not admit such things. We may not broadcast it loudly, and we do believe that Joseph’s marriage to Emma was a much deeper emotional commitment for him, while the others were done more out of duty. Nevertheless, we have never hidden that fact from public eye or Church membership. I guess when you leave statements like “some critics” making certain claims, it leaves a great deal open to speculation and can hide the nature of the reality of the situation.

Of homosexual relationships, I will not pretend that I am in 100% agreement with how my church handles it. Nevertheless, it is clear that the intent has always been to preserve familial happiness.

“But in 2015, Mr. Monson responded to the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage with a letter read in Mormon churches saying that sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage ‘are contrary to the laws of God.’ And, further drawing the line, the church declared same-sex couples to be apostates and restricted their children from baptisms and other rites.”

I don’t believe the Church has ever labeled homosexuals as apostates; certainly not in the referenced 2015 letter or in recent years. Yes, they may be excommunicated for homosexual behavior (with which I disagree, personally), but they are not apostates. Even though I’m sure many here will take issue with my church’s doctrine on homosexuality, but I don’t believe any honest individual could ever state that the Church was acting in any malicious or cruel manner. The Church did receive a great deal of criticism for disallowing ordinances to children living in a home with two gay parents, but that criticism was clearly misrepresenting the intent: the Church does not want to foster a conflicting environment where the culture within the home is contrary to the doctrines of the Church. There is a similar standard with children who come from fundamentalist polygamous families. The same Church that embraces its history of polygamy does not allow it any longer and pursues action against any practitioners within its membership. ]If a child wishes to be baptized but lives in a polygamous home, the child may not be baptized until 18 years old and disavowing polygamous marriage](https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson). This is not to punish the children, but so as not to put them in a compromising situation where they accept teachings so different from what is practiced in their own home.

Interestingly, the apostle speaking in that article, D. Todd Christofferson, has a homosexual brother who is in a committed gay relationship, yet attends church. I point this out to illustrate that my church continues to try to reconcile years of doctrine and teaching on sexual morality and Christ-like love. I believe any effort to paint my church as cruel to the LGBT community is both dishonest and unfair.

So, in short, it is not an impressive article to me. However, I am sure that many found it sufficiently incriminating to reinforce their stereotypes of Mormonism.

I do not understand the need to restrict children of same sex marriages. It smacks of punishing the kids for the acts of the parents. Regarding the requirement for children of same sex marriages to disavow same sex marriages when they reach 18, why not simply require that of all children when they reach 18?

Warb, homosexuality is so evil, we have to punish anyone who even looks at a homosexual.

Perhaps you both should reread what was written as well as the link.

I read your post for a little while, got frustrated, and gave up. It’s the same “we’re great to homosexuals!” rah-rah talking points that avoids the fact that your religion discriminates against homosexuals as always. But don’t feel bad, you’re not alone.

darth_ender said:

Perhaps you both should reread what was written as well as the link.

I did, but I still don’t understand.

Please don’t take me as having the same attitude about this as Frink.

Don’t worry Warb I’m sure he doesn’t.

I guess it’s nice that Mormons want to extend gay people some rights, unfortunately they just don’t want to give them all the rights the rest of the human race have.

First, I don’t share the same views as my church on most matters in this regard.

Second, my point is that people misconstrue the kindness my church tries to extend. Yes, my church does believe that gays should not have the right to marry. But that is not the same as discriminating in the workplace, in medical care, or elsewhere. My church, in spite of that belief, tries to be very embracing and tries to stifle intolerance. There is clearly a difference with believing something is immoral and actively trying to harm or stifle the person doing that something.

Do you believe it is immoral for my church to hold these views? That’s fine. If you are embracing of Mormons and have open dialogue of why you disagree, that’s great. If you discriminate Mormons for holding those views by, for example, speaking unkindly, making prejudiced remarks, not welcoming to a barbecue, or refusing to hire one for a job, then that’s not okay. If you are destroying or damaging Mormon property for our views, then that’s definitely not okay.

My point is that just because you disagree on the morality of the behavior, it doesn’t mean you have to be unkind or discriminatory.

TV’s Frink said:

I read your post for a little while, got frustrated, and gave up. It’s the same “we’re great to homosexuals!” rah-rah talking points that avoids the fact that your religion discriminates against homosexuals as always. But don’t feel bad, you’re not alone.

It also means that you might not have gotten the full picture I was trying to paint.

Probably. One of my personal failings is that I’m lazy. And yes, it’s better to only discriminate over one thing than over several things. But it’s still discrimination. I’m not going to hand out an attaboy because Mormons discriminate less than some other religions.

Warbler said:

I do not understand the need to restrict children of same sex marriages. It smacks of punishing the kids for the acts of the parents. Regarding the requirement for children of same sex marriages to disavow same sex marriages when they reach 18, why not simply require that of all children when they reach 18?

Did you see the comparison with children in polygamous Mormon homes?

As for the disavowing thing, it’s a good question. I personally cannot disavow it, and were I a convert seeking baptism, but I had it withheld for that reason, I would have a real hard time with that.

I think, however, that it’s important to determine both intent as well as behavior.