22 thoughts on “Who?”

  1. What I’d like to know is whether the merger between the Bloggernacle and the DAMU is likely to pass FTC scrutiny.

  3. The odd thing is that Mormons are not a large segment of the population. Therefore creating a schism from Mormonism will result in a tiny segment of the population (even if thought kin to the rest of the population).

    Under what premise would disaffected Mormons claim authority to do as Luther did and create an alternate Church? Godbe, Strang, Hinckle, Wight, Woolley, Snuffer, the list of breakaway Mormon leaders is large. Yet only in the cases where they claimed some legitimate source for their authority did they ever attain any following worth noting.

    I don’t see how those objecting to the recent policy can formulate a claim that they have authority to create a legitimate alternative Church with the power Mormons believe exists in the LDS Church.

  4. Meg –

    I don’t think they’re really trying to create an alternative church. Both Luther and Godbe wanted to reform the church they were in, before leaving and starting a new sect.

    However, Godbe really was no Luther, and all those trying to claim Luther’s mantle (or bestow it on each other) need to stop being so self-aggrandizing and realize what they’re really doing.

  5. Meg, I have heard more than once the comment they will join the Community of Christ. That is something in my opinion should be encouraged by the more conservative/orthodox members of the LDS Church for the constant liberal murmuring class. Seems to be ready made for them. Yet they keep sticking around as a fifth column and not going through with their constant threat of leaving. For the record I would rather they repent and stay, but for too many that is not their intentions. Ultimately like Lucifer they intent to storm the Gates of Heaven and install themselves as rulers.

    For the most part the others you have mentioned were built more around a personality (the Snuffer’s and Delhin’s) than dedication to a theology. Even the polygamous groups that are so splintered are that way because of charismatic individuals that form dynasties more than the principle itself. The biggest drawback for them is lacking a credible line of authority for a religion that was built around the restoration of such. The Community of Christ has withstood this because first they started out with an alternate line of authority with actual precedent early on. Then slowly diluted the theology with that same authority to the point it became unnecessary. In the end for those who seriously disagree with the main LDS Church and yet want to remain connected to Mormonism only have two realistic choices. They can be a hostile force within (unless excommunicated) or join the Community of Christ that is far more accommodating to their politics. For me the latter is best for everyone, but too many just want to see the LDS Church burn and be formed in their image before leaving.

  6. Ivan, and yet they refuse to acknowledge what happened with Luther and Godbe. They left the Church they were trying to reform. The reason is clear; neither of them had the authority to change things.

  7. For those readers who do not understand Ivan Wolfe’s cryptic style, here is a bit more on William Godbe and the Godbeites:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godbeites

    And, yes, there have been Godbeites (or their equivalents) throughout the history of Christ’s Church. We are studying the New Testament in Sunday School this year. Paul was constantly trying to correct people who wanted to take the early church in the wrong direction. And in modern-day history, Joseph Smith faced this many times, as did BY. Our leaders are facing the same thing today. History always repeats itself.

  8. I’ve been percolating thoughts on this issue over the past week, and I don’t have any better place to express them than here.

    I wonder, deep down, if the fear and outrage among some (I’m convinced a rather small group magnified in apparent size through their echo chamber) is based upon one deep-down, clear implication of the new policy: that one cannot affirm same-sex marriage or sexual cohabitation and remain a member in good standing.

    I come to interpret that implication as follows:

    – Why withhold ordinances and ordinations to the minor children of parents in same-sex households? Because it would place those children in an unfair and unreasonable position with respect to their ability to fully appreciate and keep their covenants. Why is that position unfair and unreasonable? Because keeping those covenants includes disavowal of same-sex marriage and sexual cohabitation. Otherwise, why would individuals from those backgrounds have to make such a disavowal prior to making the covenants?

    – Excusing minors from an expectation that they disavow the type of household they are being raised in is a kind and compassionate thing. Critics would counter by calling for dropping the requirement that those practices be disavowed; however, that is improper given Church doctrine on the subject.

    – If a young adult must disavow the practice of same-sex marriage and sexual cohabitation in order to make the covenants associated with baptism and priesthood ordination, it stands to reason that they must maintain that disavowal in order to keep those covenants.

    – If that disavowal is required of individuals raised in these kind of family situations, it stands to reason that all members of the Church are expected to disavow these things as well; other members of the Church are just not asked to do so explicitly, given their lack of personal connection. Would it make critics feel better if every member of the Church was asked to explicitly disavow same-sex relationships, perhaps as part of all baptismal and temple recommend interviews?

    Consequently, the implication is that all members of the Church must disavow the practice of same-sex marriage and sexual cohabitation in order to be considered keeping their covenants. It should be noted that I don’t find this to be inconsistent with Elder Christofferson’s remarks about not facing church discipline for advocating legality — advocating legality is an altogether different thing than holding something to be a legitimate lifestyle choice within the context of the Gospel.

    I certainly don’t equate minors in these situations to transgressors, but there is an important aspect of Church discipline which is worth considering here: when a person is excommunicated from the Church, it is because their lifestyle is sufficiently divorced from their ability to keep their covenants that relieving them of the burden of those covenants is what is best for their spiritual health.

    This is why this policy clarification should be seen as a kind and compassionate thing. The Brethren may feel that it is unfair and unreasonable to place a minor under covenant, when that covenant requires them to disavow the practical basis of the household in which they reside.

  9. I figured a lot of readers might go “Who the he[ck] is Godbe?” but that’s part of my plan.; people learn better when they track the information down themselves.

  10. Observer, I agree. The problem is that they will refuse to acknowledge such a line of reasoning because of what you said about them not believing the lifestyle is wrong. It becomes a complicated feedback loop for them.

  11. ” Would it make critics feel better if every member of the Church was asked to explicitly disavow same-sex relationships, perhaps as part of all baptismal and temple recommend interviews?”

    That is already implicitly covered by the “law of chastity” question, but I would not be surprised to see a more explicit disavowal added to the list of questions in the near future.

  12. And I deeply apologize the threadjack; I see between the time I began writing my comment and when I posted it the discussion had really gone in a different direction….

  13. Ivan, in my line of thought I think its more covered in the “affiliation” question, but the broader rhetorical point is that the critics would be outraged at such a development.

  14. Yes Observer, you can hear the reply now.

    “Disavow my friend? How could you?”
    “My professional standing would be further degraded.”
    “My degree useless.”
    “I’d be thought of as a bigot.”

    Many are called. Few are chosen. And why not…? The Lord tells us why not. Seek and ye shall find.

    It’s tragic to see these warnings and prophecies coming to pass in our own midst.

  15. I have a friend who became a member after taking the missionary lessons in my home. After serving a Family History mission, a parent died. I think it was the week after their parent died that they indicated they were gay.

    At the time I responded to his blog post by discussing how it was possible to remain faithful to the Church. Another individual encouraged my friend to act gay, not just be gay. But ultimately they decided they had to be fully “gay” and made the image of them ‘snogging’ their new same gender friend their facebook image.

    I still love this friend. But our paths have diverged.

  16. And Meg, that is the key that many (most?) critics don’t get, or refuse to get. It *is* possible to love our friends, our family, and yet disavow some of their acts, even when they claim those acts to be central to their identity.

  17. I think just about everybody these days has a family member or close friend who has decided to act on same-sex attraction. I can honestly say that I don’t love these people in my life any less.

  18. I don’t love them any less either. But I’m having a hard time with family members and other fellow Saints (I’ve given up on the discussion at BCC) who don’t get that the Brethren were going to establish a policy on SSM at some point. (I was expecting something, but not exactly what came out.) Families headed by same-sex couples simply don’t fit in the Gospel plan. And so the least the Church can do with their children is wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves.

    I’m not conflicted here. But I wish that those who are could see the big picture.

  19. Alas, there are those who act like idiots and kick their same gender-attracted friends/family out of their lives, removing support, saying hateful things, etc.

    Even here, few are as hateful as Missourians used to be towards Mormons. At least I find nothing in the current discussion that is similar to hauling a small child out of hiding, shooting him in the head and bragging that you had killed him, since ‘lice produce nits’ and/or ‘nits grow up to be lice.’

    Rather than Martin Luther or even Godbe, I suggest most who object are more like William Smith, who didn’t understand the difference between the New and Everlasting Covenant and Spiritual Wifery. Lacking this understanding, he presumed that he could waltz in and assume leadership of the Church based on blood right, as Joseph’s brother.

    It is interesting that ultimately no one allowed him to rule in any of the many, many Mormon offshoots. Even when he cast up on the shores of the RLDS Church late in life, his nephew, Joseph Smith III, did not permit William to grab the reins of leadership.

    Disobedience, arrogance, and insufficient understanding of Godly things caused William’s downfall. How do today’s reformers expect to succeed where William failed, when basing their efforts on similar factors?

  20. I didn’t notice it mentioned yet, so I’ll mention it: Ron Walker’s book on the Godbeites is a very good book.

Comments are closed.