![FairMormon Logo](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021_fair_logo_primary.png)
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
m (Robô: Substituição de texto automática (-{{artigos FairMormon direitos autorais}} +{{FairMormon}})) |
|||
Linha 1: | Linha 1: | ||
− | {{ | + | {{FairMormon}} |
{{título do recurso|Resposta ao "Outras preocupações e perguntas"}} | {{título do recurso|Resposta ao "Outras preocupações e perguntas"}} | ||
{{FairMormonTítuloAnálise | {{FairMormonTítuloAnálise |
Escrituras - preocupações e perguntas | A FairMormon Análise de: Carta a um Diretor SEI Uma obra de autor: Jeremy Runnells
|
Conclusão |
Avaliação das Alegações |
Carta a um Diretor SEI |
![]() |
Texto ofensivo: "No início de sua história, os líderes da Igreja pararam de conferir o sacerdócio aos homens negros de ascendência Africana. Registros da Igreja não oferecem ideias claras sobre as origens dessa prática”....a edição de 2013 da Declaração Oficial 2 nas escrituras é não apenas enganosa, é desonesto. Nós temos registros - inclusive da Primeira Própria Presidência - com ideias muito claras sobre as origens da proibição dos negros.
|
|
"As Etnias e o Sacerdócio," Tópicos do Evangelho em LDS.org (2013):
Durante as primeiras duas décadas de existência da Igreja, alguns homens negros foram ordenados ao sacerdócio. Um desses homens, Elijah Abel, também participou de cerimônias do templo em Kirtland, Ohio e foi batizado posteriormente como procurador por parentes falecidos em Nauvoo, Illinois. Não há nenhuma evidência de que a quaisquer negros foi negado o sacerdócio durante toda a vida de Joseph Smith.
Em 1852, o Presidente Brigham Young publicamente anunciou que os homens afrodescendentes negros não mais poderiam ser ordenados ao sacerdócio, embora depois eles continuassem a filiar-se à igreja por meio do batismo e de receber o dom do Espírito Santo. Após a morte de Brigham Young, outros presidentes da Igreja restringiram os negros de receberem a investidura do templo ou casarem-se no templo. Ao longo do tempo, os membros e líderes da Igreja indicaram muitas teorias para explicar a restrição ao sacerdócio e ao templo. Nenhuma dessas explicações é aceita atualmente como a doutrina oficial da Igreja.[1]
A origem da restrição do sacerdócio é uma das perguntas mais difíceis de responder. Suas origens não são claras, e isso afetava tanto como os membros e líderes viam a restrição, e as medidas necessárias para rescindí-la. A Igreja nunca forneceu uma razão oficial para a restrição.
Os membros num modo geral tomaram uma das três perspectivas:
A dificuldade em decidir entre essas opções surge porque:
a) não há nenhum relato contemporâneo de uma revelação subjacente à restrição; mas
b) muitos dos primeiro membros, no entanto, acreditavam que houve tal revelação; e
c) a ordenação do sacerdócio aos descendentes de africanos era um evento raro, que se tornou ainda mais raro com o tempo.
A história por trás da prática na Igreja moderna de reter o sacerdócio com base na raça é bem descrita por Lester Bush em um livro de 1984.[2][2] Um bom cronograma pode ser encontrado no site da BlackLDS FAIR:. FAIR link[3]
As Mormons settled into Missouri, some of their viewpoints about slavery (D&C 101:79,Predefinição:Sv) did not mesh well with those of the older settlers. The 1831 Nat Turner Rebellion left many southerners nervous as church leaders later recognized: "All who are acquainted with the situation of slave States, know that the life of every white is in constant danger, and to insinuate any thing which could possibly be interpreted by a slave, that it was not just to hold human beings in bondage, would be jeopardizing the life of every white inhabitant in the country."[4] Unfortunately, this recognition came after mobs persecuted the Missouri saints and destroyed their press in part because of W. W. Phelps's editorials supporting abolition.[5]
Under these precarious conditions, early missionaries were instructed to not teach or baptize slaves without their master's consent (see D&C 134:12). Late, perhaps unreliable, recollections suggest that Joseph Smith received inspiration that blacks should not be ordained while contemplating the situation in the South.[6] These accounts must be weighed against records of free blacks receiving the priesthood such as Black Pete (1831 OH), Elijah Abel (1835 OH), Joseph T. Ball (1837 MA), Isaac van Meter (<1837 ME), and Walker and Enoch Lewis (Fall 1843-Nov. 1844 MA). Since Ohio had a law discouraging Blacks from migrating there, this put a damper on early proselyting efforts which were largely based on the principle of the gathering.[7] Parley Pratt wrote in 1839 that the Church had less than a dozen Black members.[8]
Those who hold that the ban had a revelatory basis see the early ordinations as events which occurred prior to the revelation or without knowledge of it, while those who see the ban as more of a social/cultural phenomenon point to these ordinations as an example of the "pragmatic grounds" upon which decisions about black ordination were made.
Outsiders do not seem to have regarded members of the Church in the 1830s as sharing typical American ideas about race. In 1835, a skeptical account of their doctrines and beliefs noted:
As the promulgators of this extraordinary legend maintain the natural equality of mankind, without excepting the native Indians or the African race, there is little reason to be surprised at the cruel persecution by which they have suffered, and still less at the continued accession of converts among those who sympathize with the wrongs of others or seek an asylum for their own.
The preachers and believers of the following doctrines were not likely to remain, unmolested, in the State of Missouri.
“The Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder; that they should not lie; that they should not steal, &c. He inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness: and he denieth none that come unto him; black and white—bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” Again: “Behold! the Lamanites, your brethren, whom ye hate, because of their filthiness and the cursings which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father, &c. Wherefore the Lord God will not destroy them; but will be merciful to them; and one day they shall become [58] a blessed people.” “O my brethren, I fear, that, unless ye shall repent of your sins, that their skins shall be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God*. Wherefore a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins,” &c. “The king saith unto him, yea! if the Lord saith unto us, go! we will go down unto our brethren, and we will be their slaves, until we repair unto them the many murders and sins, which we have committed against them. But Ammon saith unto him, it is against the law of our brethren, which was established by my father, that there should any slaves among them. Therefore let us go down and rely upon the mercies of our brethren.”[9]
A Igreja desmascara FAIR e, ironicamente, contradiz seu próprio 2013 Declaração Oficial 2 cabeçalho com o lançamento de seu 06 de dezembro de 2013 ensaio sobre Raça e do Sacerdócio
|
The start of Brigham Young's administration saw a continuation of Joseph Smith's policies. William McCary was baptized and ordained at Winter Quarters in October 1846. The following March, Brigham acknowledged the validity of the ordination of Walker Lewis that likely occurred during Joseph's tenure, "we [have] one of the best Elders an African in Lowell [,MA] -- a barber." [10]
The priesthood ban then became more comprehensive to include not only slaves and free blacks in the South, but all persons deemed to have inherited the curse of Cain through Ham. Three pivotal events in this development were the apostasy of William McCary, the interracial marriage of Walker Lewis's son, and the passing of slavery legislation in Utah Territory.
McCary approached Brigham Young with complaints that racial discrimination was a motive behind other Mormon leaders questioning his strange teachings. President Young satisfied McCary that ideally race should not be the issue. Praising Walker Lewis as an example, Young suggested "Its nothing to do with the blood for [from] one blood has God made all flesh" and later added "we don't care about the color." [11] Shortly thereafter McCary was excommunicated for apostasy. In April, Brigham Young departed with the vanguard pioneer company for the Rocky Mountains only to return around December to face additional race-based problems.
In April, Elder Parley P. Pratt had warned of the Saints about following schisms led by those like James Strang and William McCary. Significantly he referred to William McCary as "this black man who has got the blood of Ham in him which linege was cursed as regards the priesthood".[12] McCary had married a Stake President's white daughter and advocated polygamy before his excommunication and afterward he began drawing away Mormon women to be sealed to him in a carnal manner.
Also awaiting Brigham was William Appleby, the president over eastern branches of the Church. He had encountered the Lewises and suspected William Smith had acted improperly by ordaining a black elder. He was also alarmed that Enoch Lewis had married a white wife and had a child. Brigham responded to this news in a manner that is, by modern sensitivities, quite disturbing. He was adamantly against racial amalgamation (see Brigham Young on race mixing for more context). While allowing that interracial couples should not be denied baptism, he introduced a ban on temple service for them and/or their offspring.
However, Brigham Young did not present a specific revelation on priesthood or temple restrictions he imposed. A definitive statement wasn't made by him until 1852 in a legislative, rather than ecclesiastical forum. Governor Young declared "any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it." [13] Like the Missouri period, the Saints were externally pressured to adopt racial policies as a political compromise. At the time, this was deemed to be the best pathway to statehood.
Those who believe the ban had a revelatory basis point to these pivotal events as examples of a prophet learning "line upon line," with revelation being implemented more rigorously. Those who see the influence of cultural factors and institutional practice behind the ban consider this evidence that the ban was based on Brigham's cultural and scriptural assumptions, and point out that such beliefs were common among most Christians in Antebellum America.[14]
In 1879, John Taylor conducted an investigation and concluded the policy had started under Joseph Smith, rather than Brigham Young, despite receiving mixed information.[15] As part of this investigation Zebedee Coltrin recalled that Joseph Smith said in 1834 that "the Spirit of the Lord saith the Negro had no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood." However, this claim is suspect given Coltrin's errors on the circumstances of Elijah Abel's ordination, participation in Kirtland temple ordinances, and retention in the Seventies quorum all under the supervision of Joseph Smith.[16]
President George Q. Cannon in 1895 asserted that some of Young's teachings about miscegenation and the seed of Cain had first been taught by Joseph Smith.[17]
Nearly forty years after the ban started, B.H. Roberts was the first to argue, based on the Book of Abraham, that the curse of Cain had continued to modern blacks through the lineage of Ham.[18]
President George Albert Smith, indicated that the priesthood ban had been imposed by "direct commandment from the Lord."
The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.
—First Presidency statement, August 17, 1949
Joseph Fielding Smith opined that blacks may have been less valiant in the pre-mortal conflict between God and Satan (however, he rejected that they may have been neutral in the war in heaven).[19]
Following Joseph Fielding Smith's death, President Lee did say, "For those who don't believe in modern revelation there is no adequate explanation. Those who do understand revelation stand by and wait until the Lord speaks...It's only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we're just waiting for that time."[29]
President Kimball began his administration by holding a press conference. When asked about the ban, he said:
[I have given it] "a great deal of thought, a great deal of prayer. The day might come when they would be given the priesthood, but that day has not come yet. Should the day come it will be a matter of revelation. Before changing any important policy, it has to be through a revelation from the Lord."[30]
He had previously written to his son:
"...I have wished the Lord had given us a little more clarity in the matter. But for me, it is enough...I know the Lord could change His policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error (?) which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that He will do, I am sure."[31]
In 1976, he mentioned
"his concern for giving the priesthood to all men, and said that he had been praying about it for fifteen years without an answer...but I am going to keep praying about it."[32]
O seguinte é um instantâneo biográfico rápida de Zina:
Ela estava casada a 7,5 meses, e tinha 6 meses de gravidez com o primeiro marido, Henry Jacobs, quando se casou com Joseph, depois de ser informada que a vida de Joseph estava em perigo,por um anjo com uma espada flamejante. (Abril 2013 revisão em Inglês)
Após a morte de Joseph, ela se casou com Brigham Young e teve o bebê da jovem enquanto o primeiro marido, Henry, estava em uma missão.
Ela estava casada a 7,5 meses, e tinha cerca de 6 meses de gravidez com o primeiro marido, Henry Jacobs, quando se casou com Joseph, depois de ser informada que a vida de Joseph estava em perigo,por um anjo com uma espada desembainhada. (Outubro 2014 revisão)
|
Em 1839, aos 18 anos, Zina chegou com seus pais em Nauvoo depois de serem expulsos do Missouri, um fiel missionário SUD, Henry Jacobs a cortejou durante 1840-1841. Naquela mesma época, Joseph Smith tinha ensinado a Zina a doutrina do casamento plural, e três vezes pediu-lhe para que se casasse com ele. Ela se recusou a cada vez, e casou-se com Henry em 07 de março de 1841. [33] Zina e Henry foram casados por John C. Bennett, então prefeito de Nauvoo. Eles haviam convidado Joseph para realizar a cerimônia, mas Bennett entrou em cena quando Joseph não chegou:
... Zina pediu ao Profeta para realizar o casamento. Eles foram ao cartório e o Profeta não chegou, por isso foram casados por John C. Bennett. Quando viram Joseph, perguntaram-lhe por que não veio. O profeta disse-lhes que o Senhor tinha lhe dado a saber que ela era para ser sua esposa Celestial. [34]
Tradições familiares apoiam que Zina e Henry estavam conscientes dos ensinamentos sobre o casamento plural de Joseph e sua proposta para Zina. Embora essa perspectiva é tardia e posterior aos fatos, é consistente com o comportamento posterior de Jacobs. A família de Zina também escreveu que Henry acreditava que "o que o Profeta fez foi certo, sem fazer com que a sabedoria da autoridade divina se curvasse perante argumentações de homens" [35]
Em 27 de outubro de 1841, Zina foi selada a Joseph Smith por seu irmão, Dimick Huntington. Ela estava grávida de seis meses de Henry, e continuou a viver com ele.
O aparente mau trato de Joseph Smith e Brigham Young em relação a Henry e o "roubo" de sua família receberam muita publicidade, graças a fontes antimórmons do século 19, e a divulgação para o público do século 20 por Fawn Brodie. [36]
Para o atual propósito, vamos nos concentrar em Zina. Ela havia recusado o pedido de casamento de Joseph por três vezes, e escolhido se casar com Henry. Por que ela decidiu ser selada a Joseph?
Quando foi interrogada por um membro da Igreja Reorganizada, Zina se recusou a entrar em detalhes. Ela esclareceu suas motivações, e explicou que Deus tinha preparado sua mente para os ensinamentos de Joseph antes mesmo de os ouvir:
- Q. "Você pode nos dar a data do casamento com Joseph Smith?"
- A. "Não, senhor, eu não poderia."
- Q. "Nem mesmo o ano?"
- A. "Não, eu não me lembro. Foi sagrado demais para se falar. Foi maior para mim do que a vida ou a morte. Nunca murmurei por anos. Vou dizer-lhe os fatos. Eu tinha sonhos - Não sou nenhuma sonhadora, mas tive sonhos que eu não poderia descrever. Sei que este é o trabalho do Senhor. Foi revelado a mim, mesmo quando era uma jovem. Coisas foram apresentadas à minha mente que eu não poderia explicar quando Joseph Smith revelou esta ordem [o casamento celestial] Eu sabia o que significava, e o Senhor estava preparando minha mente para recebê-la ".[37]
Henry foi o procurador para o selamento pós-martírio entre Zina com Joseph, e seu casamento para o tempo com Brigham Young. Henry e Zina separaram-se logo depois, e ele partiu em seguida para uma de suas muitas missões para a Igreja. [38]
Zina-se explica claramente a base para sua escolha:
... Quando eu soube que Deus tinha revelado a lei do casamento celestial e que teríamos o privilégio de conviver em relacionamentos familiares nos mundos vindouros, procurei as escrituras e através de humilde oração ao Pai Celestial obtive um testemunho para mim que Deus havia exigido que esta ordem fosse estabelecida em sua Igreja. [39]
Ao ser colocada diante das perguntas do entrevistador da igreja reorganizada, sentiu uma invasão de privacidade e foi evasiva.Finalmente ela encerrou a entrevista dizendo: "Senhor. Wight, você está falando sobre as experiências mais sagradas da minha vida ...". [40]
Zina married Henry Jacobs in 1840, and was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity in 1841,
Be it remembered that on this first day of May A.D. eighteen sixty nine before me Elias Smith Probate Judge for Said County personally appeared, Zina Diantha Huntington ^Young^ who was by me Sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath Saith, that on the twenty-Seventh day of October A.D. 1841, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, She was married or Sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Dimick B. Huntington, a High Priest in Said Church, according to the laws of the same; regulating marriage; In the presence of Fanny Maria Huntington. [41]
There are many stories and accusations related to the marriage of Zina and Henry, and her sealing to Joseph. For details regarding each of these allegations, see Brian and Laura Hales, "Zina Diantha Huntington," josephsmithspolygamy.org off-site.
See also: Allen Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," FAIR Conference, 2006.
No Manual da Escola Dominical, Ensinamentos dos Presidentes da Igreja: Brigham Young, a Igreja mudou a palavra 'mulheres' para '[esposa]'." Não é só o manual enganoso na divulgação que Brigham Young era um polígamo....
|
Some would like to suggest that the Church has been attempting to "fool" its membership into thinking Brigham was a monogamist, when it is fairly common knowledge, both inside and outside of the Church, that he was not. Many US history textbooks used in public high schools mention Brigham's polygamy, for example, and most news stories and other mentions of the Church in modern media will mention polygamy, so it would seem odd (and a bit futile) for the Church to attempt to rewrite this aspect of its history by means of a single lesson in a single manual.
Furthermore, the use of square brackets is an accepted editorial convention when a later author wants to use an earlier author's words but change them slightly to fit a different purpose without changing the overall message of the quote. In the case of the quote in question, Brigham Young is giving counsel to a group of men on how they can be good leaders in their families, which for many of them at the time would have included polygamous marriages. In the modern church, members would only have one spouse, yet the counsel on how to be good leaders of families is still relevant, though it would require an editorial change (clearly marked in square brackets) to change "wives" to "wife".
A review of the manual itself reveals that it does not claim Brigham Young "only has one wife," nor does it "paint [him] as a monogamist." In fact, it primarily concentrates on Brigham's teachings, and only briefly touches on his personal life.
Brief biographical information on Brigham appears in a one-page "Historical Summary." [42] Chapter 1, "The Ministry of Brigham Young," also has some biographical data, although it almost exclusively focuses on his conversion, missionary experiences, calling to the Quorum of the Twelve, and colonization and leadership of Utah. The Historical Summary and Chapter 1 both mention his marriage to and the death of his first wife, Miriam Works, [43] and his subsequent remarriage to Mary Ann Angel. [44] Other than that, they do not discuss his marriage relationships or family life.
In Chapter 23, "Understanding the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage," two instances of the term "wives" were modified to "[wife]," with brackets included to notify the reader of the editorial change. Since the statements did not refer to Brigham's own wives, but were part of his counsel to men regarding their marriages, the edited reading is easier for today's Latter-day Saints, none of whom are married to more than one wife.
The next manual in the instructional series—Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith—includes this clarifying statement in the "Historical Summary" of President Smith's life:
This book is not a history, but rather a compilation of gospel principles as taught by President Joseph F. Smith. However, in order to put the teachings in a historical framework, the following list is provided to summarize some of the milestones in his life that have most immediate relationship to his teachings. This summary omits some important events in his personal life, including his marriages (plural marriage was being practiced in the Church at that time) and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted. [45]
This explanation, which is almost certainly directed at detractors of the Brigham Young manual, clarifies that the purpose of the series is not biographical or historical, but didactical. Other Church publications that are historical discuss the subject of plural marriage and its practice among the Latter-day Saints in the nineteenth century. [46]
Note also that a careful reading of the quotations as shown in the Brigham Young manual or in their original sources (which are clearly referenced in the manual) will show that Brigham is not actually referring to his own wives and family in these quotes but to the families of the people he was addressing, so the suggestion that this quote somehow recasts Brigham as a monogamist is somewhat puzzling. The fact that the author of the letter mentions changing "wives" to "wife" in the Brigham Young manual without sharing the actual quote, which provides this additional explanatory context, suggests that this criticism is borrowed from elsewhere, since many sectarian critics of the church picked up on this story when the manual first came out and characterized it in similar terms and without the proper context, as the author has done here. A FairMormon publication by Mike Parker, "The Church’s Portrayal of Brigham Young," explains further:
In Chapter 23, “Understanding the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage,” two instances of the term “wives” were modified to “[wife],” with brackets included to notify the reader of the editorial change. Since the statements did not refer to Brigham’s own wives, but were part of his counsel to men regarding their marriages, the edited reading is easier for today’s Latter-day Saints, none of whom are married to more than one wife.
The next manual in the instructional series–Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith–includes this clarifying statement in the “Historical Summary” of President Smith’s life:
This book is not a history, but rather a compilation of gospel principles as taught by President Joseph F. Smith. However, in order to put the teachings in a historical framework, the following list is provided to summarize some of the milestones in his life that have most immediate relationship to his teachings. This summary omits some important events in his personal life, including his marriages (plural marriage was being practiced in the Church at that time) and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted.10
This explanation, which is almost certainly directed at detractors of the Brigham Young manual, clarifies that the purpose of the series is not biographical or historical, but didactical. Other Church publications that are historical discuss the subject of plural marriage and its practice among the Latter-day Saints in the nineteenth century.11
The Brigham Young manual and the manuals that followed it include selected teachings on selected subjects that have application to subjects of concern to today's Latter-day Saints. They do not teach history, but how to live the gospel of Jesus Christ. Despite the complaints of its detractors, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not engaged in a cover up, nor is it attempting to hide an "embarrassing past."
Eu nunca disse que as citações que se refere o próprias esposas de Brigham Young. É óbvio a partir de palestra de Brigham que ele estava se referindo a outros homens e que suas esposas polígamas. FAIR está criando uma strawman por deturpar o meu argumento .... Mais uma vez, eu nunca disse que Brigham estava se referindo às suas próprias esposas nas citações alteradas. FAIR está agarrando em palhas aqui. Eu demonstrar acima como o manual é enganosa, porque não há uma menção sobre 53 esposas de Brigham e 49 crianças e poligamia, apesar de discutir sua pré-poligamia primeira esposa e, em seguida, sua pré-poligamia segunda esposa (depois de sua primeira esposa passado), juntamente com os filhos a partir desses casamentos polígamos não. O manual apresenta um monogâmico Brigham Young.
|
|
Então, por que oferecem sujeira em Brigham e trazer o cartão de poligamia feio quando você está no controle da conversa e material? Por que não fingir poligamia nunca aconteceu enquanto parando de negar isso? ...
A Igreja apresenta um monogamist Brigham Young no seu manual de Brigham Young. Quando se refere a história biográfica de Brigham, eles apresentam um monogamist Brigham Young ... Ele continua na listagem de todos os muitos eventos, realizações e desafios que Young passou em sua vida, mas não é zero menção da poligamia de Young.
|
The Historical Summary and Chapter 1 of the Brigham Young manual both mention his marriage to and the death of his first wife, Miriam Works, and his subsequent remarriage to Mary Ann Angel, but they do not discuss his other marriage relationships. The manual, which is focused on Brigham Young's teachings rather than his history (thus the title "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church"), was perceived by some to be minimizing or hiding Brigham's otherwise well-known practice of plural marriage.
The Church clarified this in the next manual that was released, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, which stated:
This book is not a history, but rather a compilation of gospel principles as taught by President Joseph F. Smith. However, in order to put the teachings in a historical framework, the following list is provided to summarize some of the milestones in his life that have most immediate relationship to his teachings. This summary omits some important events in his personal life, including his marriages (plural marriage was being practiced in the Church at that time) and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted. [47]
A similar statement appears in Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Heber J. Grant:
This book is not a history, but rather a compilation of gospel principles as taught by President Heber J. Grant. The following chronology provides a brief historical framework for these teachings. It omits significant events in secular history, such as wars and worldwide economic crises. It also omits many important events in President Grant’s personal life, such as his marriages and the births and deaths of his children. [48]
And, of course, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith:
This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day....This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime.
—The 2008-2009 lesson manual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007), pages vii–xiii (emphasis added)
Deveria ser óbvio para qualquer leitor que lê Capítulo 1 que o manual inclui informações biográficas e históricas sobre Brigham Young; não apenas didática .... Mais uma vez, esta é uma afirmação falsa. Os manuais que ensinam a história junto com aulas didáticas.
|
|
Brigham Young: "Os únicos homens que se tornam Deuses, até mesmo os Filhos de Deus, são aqueles que entram em poligamia."Gordon B. Hinckley: "A poligamia não é doutrinário." Doutrina de ontem é falsa doutrina de hoje. Profeta de ontem é herege de hoje.
Observe que a especulação não é sobre se existe ou não a poligamia no Reino Celestial. A especulação é sobre se é uma exigência "para todos os que entram" Reino Celestial. No entanto, você tem o Presidente Hinckley afirmando claramente que a poligamia não é doutrinário.
|
Gordon B. Hincley fez a seguinte declaração no programa Larry King no dia 8 de Setembro de 1998, com relação à prática da Polgamia:
Eu a condeno [poligamia], sim, como uma prática, porque eu acho que não é doutrinária. Não é permitida. E esta Igreja toma a posição de que cumpriremos a lei. Acreditamos em ser submissos a reis, presidentes, magistrados em honra, obediência e apoio a lei.
Apesar do fato de regras relacionadas à poligamia serem descritas em D&C 132, a Igreja não mais a ensina como doutrina. Ela era ensinada como doutrina no século 18, mas não é ensinada como doutrina atualmente. Não há doutrina que permita a presente prática do casamento plural na Igreja. Sua prática "não é doutrinária."
Poligamia é ilegal atualmente e a diretriz da Igreja é respeitar a lei sobre o assunto. Na maior parte da prática do casamento plural, a Igreja lutou contra as leis anti-polígamas, e as considerava como violação à constituição. Qualquer decisão de desobedecer a lei secular conscientemente deve ser especificamente ordenada por líderes da Igreja. Atualmente, isto jamais aconteceu.
Muitos estudiosos de Leis Constitucionais - Membros e não membros da Igreja - classificam as decisões da Suprema Corte sobre a legalização do casamento plural claramente como baseadas e motivadas por preconceito religioso. Os santos do século 19 possuíam sólido fundamento ao acreditar que a lei era injusta e eventualmente seria revogada. [49]
"O Casamento Plural e as Famílias Polígamas nos Primórdios de Utah," Tópicos do Evangelho em LDS.org:
Após o Manifesto, a monogamia foi defendida na Igreja, tanto ao púlpito quanto por meio da imprensa. Em caráter excepcional, alguns novos casamentos plurais foram realizados entre 1890 e 1904, especialmente no México e no Canadá, fora da jurisdição da lei americana; um número pequeno de casamentos plurais foi realizado nos Estados Unidos durante aquele período.4 Em 1904, a Igreja proibiu completamente a realização de novos casamentos plurais.5 Atualmente, qualquer pessoa que pratique o casamento plural não pode se tornar ou continuar como membro da Igreja.[50]
Manual de Brigham Young da Escola Dominical...Não é só o manual enganoso na divulgação que Brigham Young era um polígamo, mas é enganoso em esconder o verdadeiro ensino de Brigham Young sobre o casamento: “Os únicos homens que se tornam deuses, até mesmo os Filhos de Deus, são aqueles que entram em poligamia.” – Journal of Discourses 11:269
|
Critics of the Church point to a statement made by Brigham Young to make the claim that Latter-day Saints believe that one must practice plural marriage in order to achieve exaltation: [51] Brigham Young once said,
The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:269.)
This quotation is often used in anti-Mormon sources. They do not include the surrounding text which explains what Brigham Young had in mind on this occasion (italics show text generally not cited by those trying to worry modern-day readers):
We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.[52]
It is clear that Brigham was making several points which the critics ignore:
Finally, it must be remembered that Brigham Young is speaking to a group who had been commanded to live the law of polygamy. There is no basis for speculating about what he would have said to a group who did not have that commandment given to them, as present-day members do not.
I attended the school of the prophets. Brother John Holeman made a long speech upon the subject of Poligamy. He Contended that no person Could have a Celestial glory unless He had a plurality of wives. Speeches were made By L. E. Harrington O Pratt Erastus Snow, D Evans J. F. Smith Lorenzo Young. President Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all.[53]
Then President Young spoke 58 Minuts. He said a Man may Embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart & not take the Second wife & be justified before the Lord.[54]
"Doctrine and Covenants 132," Seminary Teacher Resource Manual on LDS.org:
Note: Avoid sensationalism and speculation when talking about plural marriage. Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation.[55]
When a debate in the School of the Prophets arose when one claimed that "no man who has only one wife in this probation can ever enter [the] Celestial kingdom," both Wilford Woodruff and John Taylor disagreed.[56]
George Q. Cannon, a member of the First Presidency, noted in 1884 that "he believed there would be men in the Celestial Kingdom that had but one wife," and in 1900 a counselor to Wilford Woodruff remembered Brigham Young "proposed that we marry but one wife."[57] Cannon said that "I am perfectly satisfied there are men who will be counted worthy of that glory who never had a wife; there are men probably in this world now, who will receive exaltation, who never had a wife at all, or probably had but one."[58]
In 1892, Wilford Woodruff and others were asked, in essence, "if Joseph Smith had ever taught you at Nauvoo or anywhere else during his lifetime, that in order for a man to be exalted in the hereafter, he must have more than one wife?"
Daniel H. Wells, second councilor to Brigham Young, made it clear that plural marriage was then a commandment, but it was necessary to obey only when they had "a thorough understanding" of the doctrine and "other circumstances [were] favorable" for practicing it:
It [plural marriage] was a doctrine of the church that when male members came to a thorough understanding of the revelation on the principle of plural or celestial marriage, and other circumstances being favorable, if they failed to obey it they would be under condemnation, and would be clipped in their glory in the world to come. The circumstances that would excuse a person would be physical incapacity and the like....The doctrine was enjoined upon all male members of the Church whose circumstances were favorable to their taking a plurality of wives.[60]
Também é falso que "A Igreja de Jesus Cristo dos Santos dos Últimos Dias não está envolvido em um encobrimento, nem é a tentativa de ocultar um" passado embaraçoso '. "A Igreja não é transparente para os seus membros e pesquisadores em 2014 sobre suas origens e história.
|
Estimado 5 bilhões de dólares a construção do Shopping City Creek Center (Abril 2013 revisão em Inglês)
Estimado 1.5 bilhões de dólares a construção do Shopping City Creek Center (Outubro 2014 revisão)
Algo está fundamentalmente errado com a "única Igreja verdadeira" gastar mais em um Shopping do que tem gasto em 26 anos da ajuda humanitária.
Total da Igreja em ajuda humanitária 1985-2011: 1,4 bilhões dólares
|
The City Creek Center cost is approximately $1.5 billion, not $5 billion. (The $5 billion figure is popularly used on ex-Mormon message boards)
No tithing funds are invested in the City Creek project. However, those funds that are invested may well pay dividends in the future, as well as providing many benefits to the community and those who live in it.
The motivation for the Church's involvement in the City Creek Center project is described in an extensive interview with Presiding Bishop H. David Burton: "Mormon leaders and Salt Lake City work together to transform land," Deseret News (7 March 2010). Deseret News has more information on the construction and financing (see here).
From the Wikipedia article "City Creek Center": "The City Creek Center is part of an estimated $5 billion sustainable design project to revitalize downtown Salt Lake City. The City Creek Center project itself has been estimated to cost around $1.5 billion." off-site
The "$5 billion" dollar figure refers to the cost of the entire Salt Lake City downtown redevelopment project, referred to as "Downtown Rising." The City Creek Center cost $1.5 Billion. Details about these projects may be viewed at Downtown Rising. Other projects include the following:
Some have insisted that funds would be better if directed to charitable works such as feeding the poor. The Church does have an extensive humanitarian effort. Critics on this point often overlook the fact that Church funds are best managed not by sitting in a bank account, but through prudent investment. Investment in land and real estate development is often a wise and ultimately profitable investment approach.
It is entirely possible that the City Creek Center Mall will eventually become a money making venture, as the Church collects rent from mall merchants. This investment strategy would allow the Church to, over time, recoup its initial outlay or even make money that could be further dedicated to the Church's religious and humanitarian goals.
Critics also overlook the fact that if money is spent to feed the needy, that money is gone. On the other hand, if the Church reinvests in Salt Lake City's downtown core, this provides jobs and economic stimulus (for example, via construction and then the service-industry jobs which will fill the mall upon its completion). While providing fewer short term gains, this long term "teach a man to fish" strategy could ultimately benefit many more people, by allowing them to "help themselves." Presiding Bishop H. David Burton noted:
Reflecting on City Creek, Bishop Burton said that if he'd known seven or eight years ago that "we'd be facing the second-worst recessionary period in our history, I may have not suggested we proceed this quickly with the City Creek project. But knowing there would be on any given day upwards of 1,700 jobs in the community — and that could bless the lives of a lot of families," the church decided to move forward.
"And when you get the secondary impact of those 1,700 prime jobs and the multiplier effect, it is a substantial contribution to this state and this community and its tax base, Bishop Burton said. "Any parcel of property the church owns that is not used directly for ecclesiastical worship is fully taxed at its market value." [61]
Further, property investment does not preclude the Church from continuing its service efforts with other monies. This is not an "either/or" question.
If Salt Lake can avoid the fate of so many other inner cities--a lapse into disrepair, poverty, and crime--this will likewise benefit all the city's inhabitants. The Church seems to be taking a longer view to preserve the city core for the future. One observer has noted economic and social benefits already:
Natalie Gochnour, the executive vice president of the Salt Lake Chamber, points out that the development will include 524 residential units and is already pumping life into downtown. Over the last two years, more than a dozen new restaurants have opened within a two-block radius of the development. [62]
Some have wondered if the mall will be required to adhere to LDS standards (e.g., no sale of alcohol, no Sunday openings). The City Creek development (which includes other establishments and housing in addition to the mall) is a joint venture between a real estate developer owned by the LDS church and another developer that is not affiliated with the church. It appears that alcohol will be served at some venues, and some venues will be open on Sundays, but that this will only be permitted at venues which are owned by the partner developer, NOT at the venues which are owned by the LDS church's development company. [63]
As of July 2013, the redevelopment seems to be improving matters as hoped. The New York Times reported:
“The center has added 2,000 jobs and brought more than 16 million visitors into downtown,” according to the Economic Benchmark Report of 2013, paid for by the real estate firm CBRE. Taking into account the improving economy, the report credits the mall, at 50 South Main Street, with helping downtown retail sales increase by 36 percent, or $209 million, in 2012.
The “mall is the single most important thing to happen to Salt Lake City in 50 years, maybe more,” said Bruce Bingham, a partner with Hamilton Partners, a Chicago-based real estate developer. “It revitalized downtown.” [64]
The mall also has, as of July 2013, a 98% occupancy rate, and data suggest that there was a demand for retail space that the mall helped to fill, shifting spending from on-line realtors to the local economy:
Linda Wardell, the general manager of City Creek Center, said the mall had a 98 percent occupancy rate, with 104 stores, seven restaurants and a 1,000-seat food court. “There was a real pent-up demand for shopping in this market,” Ms. Wardell said. “Some people were already buying from these retailers online and they were eager to come here.”
Convention visitors also have been vital to the mall’s success, providing 25 to 35 percent of its sales, she said. The city benefits from year-round visitors to nearby ski resorts, five national parks and, of course, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she said. [65]
The Church's involvement also makes possible a more long-term view that entities concerned only about profit do not have:
Jason Mathis, executive director of Salt Lake City’s Downtown Alliance, a business development group, acknowledged that the church-backed development had drawn a spectrum of opinions.
“In this community,” where about 40 percent of the city’s residents are Mormon, “the L.D.S. is such a powerful large entity, it will be more controversial and evoke strong feelings,” he said. “But they’re an interesting landlord. They’re not worried about the next quarter. They have a much longer perspective than many other investors would have had. They want to know what the city will look like in the next 50 or 100 years.” [66]
Some have wondered whether tithing funds (even from long ago) aren't the "ultimate" source of the funds used in the redevelopment. A review of the history of such funds and Church involvement in business suggests that this is not the case.
In the first place, it should be remembered that to mix tithing (tax-deductible) funds with taxable funds from other sources would cause major issues with the IRS, something which the Church would be unlikely to risk--both because to do so would be dishonest, and because the legal and public-relations consequences would be severe, even if they were inclined to do so.
The church has a number of for-profit businesses including real estate, ranching and agriculture, media, mercantile, etc. They have carefully invested for over a century in order to have a good financial cushion in order not to be severely in debt as they were in the late 1890s-early 1900s, nor to be on the verge of financial distress as they were in the late 1950s-early 1960s from over-spending building church meeting houses and other church-related ventures and expenditures.
In the 19th-century, funds for church and state, church and business, etc., were all intermingled during a good portion of the Great Basin period leading up to statehood. This was because when the Saints arrived in Utah there was no pre-existing community. There was no infrastructure nor corporate entities providing for even the bare essentials of life. Everything had to come from the church and its members. And for the first few decades, none of the church's members were really in a position to invest large capital on projects like roads, bridges, canals, mills, and other necessities. Therefore, the church stepped in and was not only a source of spiritual aid but physical aid as well. Most of the "investment" made by members came in the form of goods and labor, not money deposited into a bank or brokerage account.
The church used what precious funds it could to build infrastructure and provide for the needs of the people. In the process, the church and its leading members created companies like Deseret Bank and Zion's Bank, Deseret Produce Company, Deseret Salt Company, Deseret Telegraph, Deseret Manufacturing Society, Deseret Iron Company, Jordan River Canal Company, Davis Canal and Irrigation Company, Utah Central Railroad, Utah Southern Railroad, Utah Northern Railroad and a host of other companies. Some companies were successful and others were complete failures.
It is simply a cop-out for critics of the Church to simply go back in time until they can equate everything that the Church has to a tithing or offering donation. This does not make President Hinckley a liar.
Members donated time to build buildings, help build railroads, canals and other projects. Those with money "invested" knowing they would probably see only a partial return. Often, the stocks held by these investors earned pennies to the dollars invested and quite often were eventually turned over to the church as a gift. They were all doing what they could to build up the kingdom. Heber J. Grant, for example, had an insurance company that was sold for a very low price to the church and then combined with another insurance company to create Beneficial Life. Deseret Telegraph was later sold to Western Union. Even the hospitals and universities were originally church-owned and run ventures because they had to be.
So, that is where the original money came from that was then used to invest in more profitable business ventures and later used for projects like City Creek Mall. Some of these ventures became profitable and were sold as the church divested itself of businesses they felt other companies could run. The banks were sold, the hospitals were sold. The Church had originally been given an enormous amount of Union Pacific stock shares as well as rails and rolling stock to pay Brigham Young and other investors, including the Church, for labor building the road beds, etc., in Utah. Eventually the church sold its railroads, built from materials and money that came from Union Pacific, back to Union Pacific and made a good amount of money. That money was, in turn, reinvested in other ventures for later use.
Ultimately, the church goes to great length not to mix sacred money with church investments but is constantly trying to use its investments to further the goals of the Church. City Creek Mall was made not to make money (although that has turned out to be a wonderful side-benefit thus far) but to create a place that would draw people back to downtown Salt Lake City. Church leaders were very concerned that downtown Salt Lake City was slowly dying. Stores were closing and the downtown was becoming blighted and unattractive. Church leaders did not want Temple Square and other church buildings to be surrounded by rundown blocks that few people were going to. Therefore, they felt it was worth the investment to build something beautiful and productive that would draw other businesses, restaurants, etc. and keep the blocks surrounding Temple Square vibrant. They seem to have succeeded, and also have provided an economic boon to the region.
Eu achei a seguinte citação em dezembro 2012 Ensign muito preocupante:Será que um Deus empático tipo de amor realmente colocar os pais na posição horrível de ter que escolher se quer alimentar seus filhos ou pagar o pouco que têm para uma mega igreja multibilionária que recebe cerca de 8000 milhões dólares em receitas anuais do dízimo?Se pagar o dízimo significa que você não poderá pagar pela água ou eletricidade, pague o dízimo. Se pagar o dízimo significa que você não pode pagar o aluguel, pague o dízimo. Mesmo se pagar o dízimo significa que você não tem dinheiro suficiente para alimentar sua família, pague o dízimo. O Senhor não te abandonará
|
|
One critic of the Church states,
I find the following quote in the December 2012 Ensign very disturbing:
If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you.
Would a loving, kind, empathic God really place parents in the horrible position of having to choose whether to feed their children or pay what little they have to a multi-billion megamall owning Church that receives an estimated $8,000,000,000 in annual tithing receipts?" [67]
The quote used is part of a story about a family in San Salvador that had joined the Church and was experiencing a great change in their lives. We will provide a bit more of the context:
The Vigils’ bishop, César Orellana, also saw changes in their lives. Soon after their baptism, Amado approached Bishop Orellana and said, “We want to pay tithing, but we don’t know how.”
Bishop Orellana explained that tithing was 10 percent of their increase. Amado was somewhat concerned. At the time, Evelyn had a job, but he did not. “We always come up short,” Amado explained to his bishop, “but we want to pay tithing.”
Bishop Orellana responded, “Brother, the Lord has made many promises.” Together they read scriptures about the blessings that come from faithfully paying tithing, including the Lord’s words through the prophet Malachi: “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, … and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it” (Malachi 3:10).
After reading these scriptures together, Bishop Orellana looked at the new convert and said, “If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you.”
The next Sunday, Amado approached Bishop Orellana again. This time he didn’t ask any questions. He simply handed his bishop an envelope and said, “Bishop, here is our tithing.”
Reflecting on this experience, Bishop Orellana says, “Ever since then, they have been faithful tithe payers.” The family received some commodities from the bishops’ storehouse during their financial difficulties. Beyond that, the Lord blessed them to be able to care for themselves. Evelyn received a promotion, and Amado found a good job. Evelyn later lost her job, but they continued to pay tithing and to receive spiritual and temporal blessings for their faithfulness. Once Bishop Orellana asked Amado how the family was doing financially. Amado responded, “We’re doing all right. Sometimes we don’t have much to eat, but we have enough. And more than anything, we trust in the Lord.” [68]
If someone is in the situation where they have to choose between tithing and food, it is of benefit to sit down and talk with the bishop as they have access to better training and employment opportunities as well as may be helpful in establishing a better budget so that such a conflict won't arise in the future.
With regard to self sufficiency, we are taught as well that we need to be part of our faith community and that requires at us time to allow others to serve us. It is a kindness to give others such opportunities, even when we don't necessarily need such help. There are blessings that come from being a charitable receiver as well as a charitable giver.
Critics of the Church often portray it as a business or corporation, with tithing being the method by which income is generated. If this were true, however, why would the Church be interested in the "widow's mite?" Critics often act as if the Church simply takes money from the poor and leaves them to fend for themselves. The reality is that the Church will not only support the destitute, but it will assist them in finding employment or means to create better circumstances in their lives. The Church does not force anyone to choose to pay tithing or to feed their children. The choice presented by the critics is a caricature which completely ignores the function of the Church Welfare program.
Paying tithing is a matter of faith. From a believer's perspective, a more accurate description than "pay what little they have to a multi-billion megamall owning Church" would be to "donate one-tenth of what little they have to the Lord."
There is a Biblical precedent for the idea that even those that are destitute will be blessed by the Lord if they pay their tithing. [69]:
The Lord says to Elijah, “Arise, get thee to Zarephath … : behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee” (1 Kgs. 17:9). It is interesting that Elijah is not told to go to Zarephath until the widow and her son are at the point of death. It is at this extreme moment—facing starvation—that her faith will be tested.
As he comes into the city he sees her gathering sticks.
“And he called to her, and said, Fetch me, I pray thee, a little water in a vessel, that I may drink.
“And as she was going to fetch it, he called to her, and said, Bring me, I pray thee, a morsel of bread in thine hand.
“And she said, As the Lord thy God liveth, I have not a cake, but an handful of meal in a barrel, and a little oil in a cruse: and, behold, I am gathering two sticks, that I may go in and dress it for me and my son, that we may eat it, and die” (1 Kgs. 17:10–12).
A handful of meal would be very little indeed, perhaps just enough for one serving, which makes Elijah’s response intriguing. Listen: “And Elijah said unto her, Fear not; go and do as thou hast said: but make me thereof a little cake first” (1 Kgs. 17:13; emphasis added).
Now doesn’t that sound selfish, asking not just for the first piece, but possibly the only piece? Didn't our parents teach us to let other people go first and especially for a gentleman to let a lady go first, let alone a starving widow? Her choice—does she eat, or does she sacrifice her last meal and hasten death? Perhaps she will sacrifice her own food, but could she sacrifice the food meant for her starving son?
Elijah understood the doctrine that blessings come after the trial of our faith (see Ether 12:6; D&C 132:5). He wasn't being selfish. As the Lord’s servant, Elijah was there to give, not to take. Continuing from the narrative:
“But make me thereof a little cake first [the firstlings], and bring it unto me, and after make for thee and for thy son.
“For thus saith the Lord God of Israel, The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the Lord sendeth rain upon the earth.
“And she went and did according to the saying of Elijah: and she, and he, and her house, did eat many days.
“And the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by Elijah” (1 Kgs. 17:13–16; emphasis added).
Mark 12:41–44 gives us the story of the widows mite:
And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
Depois de decidir "Igreja de Jesus Cristo", em 6 de abril de 1830, Joseph Smith tomou a decisão em 03 de maio de 1834 para alterar o nome da Igreja para "A Igreja dos Santos dos Últimos Dias ". Por que Joseph levou o nome de "Jesus Cristo" para fora do próprio nome de Sua Igreja restaurada? A única verdadeira Igreja sobre a face da terra em que Cristo é o Chefe?....Why would Christ instruct Joseph to name it one thing in 1830 and then change it in 1834 and then change it again in 1838?
|
Os críticos da Igreja perguntam: Por que a Igreja mudou de nome duas vezes durante sua história? Seu nome não devia ter sido recebido por revelação? [70] Em 1834, o nome da Igreja foi mudado para "The Church of the Latter Day Saints" ("A Igreja dos Santos dos Últimos Dias"). Por que Joseph tiraria o nome de "Jesus Cristo" do nome da Igreja? Em 1868, o nome da Igreja foi mudado para "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" ("A Igreja de Jesus Cristo dos Santos dos Últimos Dias", mas sem o hífen atualmente presente em "Latter-Day"). Por que o nome da Igreja foi mudado de novo?
Cristo instruiu Joseph a mudar o nome da Igreja por revelação apenas uma vez, como descrito em D&C 115:3. Antes disso, a Igreja foi conhecida por vários nomes diferentes, incluindo "The Church of Christ" ("A Igreja de Cristo"), "Church of Jesus Christ" ("Igreja de Jesus Cristo"), "Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints" ("Igreja de Cristo dos Santos dos Últimos Dias"), "The Church of God" ("A Igreja de Deus") e "The Church of Latter Day Saints" ("A Igreja dos Santos dos Últimos Dias"). O único nome estabelecido por revelação para a Igreja é aquele mencionado em D&C 115:3.
...pois assim será chamada, e a todos os élderes e ao povo de minha Igreja de Jesus Cristo dos Santos dos Últimos Dias, dispersos por todo o mundo.
Nenhum dos outros nomes pelos quais a Igreja foi conhecida haviam sido estabelecidos por revelação.
É interessante notar que a mudança no nome da Igreja incomodou David Whitmer. Whitmer insistia que o nome original da Igreja, a "Igreja de Cristo", era o único apropriado, e alegou que ele fora dado por revelação. Não existe, no entanto, nenhuma revelação que supoerte esta alegação, a não ser que contemos o próprio Livro de Mórmon. Whitmer parce ter usado o Livro de Mórmon para suportar sua alegação (O Livro de Mórmon usa "Igreja de Cristo).
Também deve ser observado que, de acordo com Whitmer, Joseph não promoveu a mudança de noe de "Igreja de Cristo" para "Igreja dos Santos dos Ultimos Dias"; Whitmer alegou que foi Sidney Rigdon quem causou a mudança do nome para Igreja dos Santos dos Últimos Dias":
Em Junho de 1829, o Senhor nos deu o nome pelo qual devemos chamar a igreja, sendo o mesmo que Ele deu aos nefitas. Nós obedecemos ao Seu mandamento e a chamamos de A IGREJA DE CRISTO até 1834, quando, pela influência de Sidney Rigdon, o nome da igreja foi alterado para "A Igreja dos Santos dos Últimos Dias", eliminando completamente o nome de Cristo, nome esse pelo qual fomos, por Sua própria boca e de maneira clara, estritamente ordenados a chamar Sua igreja. (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Mormon (David Whitmer: Richmond, Virginia, 1887), 72. ISBN 1428611134. off-site)
B. H. Roberts, numa anotação nas páginas 23 e 24 de History of the Church, Volume III, declarou:
Deve-se observar que, nos versículos três e quatro desta revelação, o Senhor deu à Igreja o seu nome oficial, "A Igreja de Jesus Cristo dos Santos dos Últimos Dias". Antes disso, a Igreja foi chamada de "A Igreja de Cristo", "A Igreja de Jesus Cristo", "A Igreja de Deus", e, através de uma conferência de élderes, realizada em Kirtland, em Maio de 1834 (ver Church History, vol. 2, pág. 62-63), recebeu o nome de "A Igreja dos Santos dos Últimos Dias". Entretanto, todos esses nomes foram postos de lado por esta revelação e, desde então, o nome oficial dado nesta revelação foi reconhecido como o verdadeiro título da Igreja, mesmo embora ela seja chamada com frequência de "A Igreja Mórmon", a "Igreja de Cristo", etc. O quanto que este título é apropriado é evidente e nele há um belo reconhecimento do relacionamento tanto do Senhor Jesus Cristo quanto dos Santos com a organização.
As palavras "Igreja de Jesus Cristo" são referências óbvias ao Salvador e à Sua Igreja. A adição de "Últimos Dias" ressalta a crença da Igreja de que esta não é uma nova "Organização Cristã", mas sim uma restauração realizada nos "Últimos Dias", ou seja, nos dias precedendo o retorno de Cristo, da mesma organização que Ele fez quando estava na Terra.
O título "Santos" identifica os membros como pessoas que são - ou pretendem ser - santas. "Santo" vem do latin sanctus, que significa "consagrado". Os Santos são aqueles que se tornaram consagrados por meio da graça e do sangue de Jesus Cristo.
Sendo assim, o nome da Igreja enfatiza de várias formas a sua ligação com Cristo e com Sua Igreja da antiguidade.
Alguns críticos tentam impor ideias, que pretendem ser irrefutáveis, sobre a Igreja, agindo como se certas coisas, tais como nomes oficiais e procedimentos, nunca pudessem mudar. Entretanto, os Santos dos Últimos Dias nunca partilharam dessas ideias, crendo que Deus concede, a Seus filhos, a liberdade para agir dentro dos limites estabelecidos por Ele, enquanto buscam aprender e fazer a Sua vontade, confiando que Deus falará por revelação quando necessário para se assegurar de que Sua Igreja não se desviará de Suas intenções.
O nome original da Igreja, quando foi organizada em 1830, era a "Igreja de Cristo". De certa forma, o mormonismo surgiu no contexto histórico do movimento restauracionista. Este movimento consistia de cristãos que acreditavam que o cristianismo original precisava ser restaurado e era uma crença comum entre os cristãos restauracionistas que o nome apropriado de uma igreja cristã deveria ser "Igreja de Cristo". Muitos membros novos da Igreja trouxeram esse tipo de ideias consigo, quando se tornaram "mórmons".
Só que isto causou vários problemas, já que havia muitos grupos restauracionistas que deram às suas igrejas locais o nome de "Igreja de Cristo". Então, houve uma tremenda confusão. (De fato, um dos grupos descendentes dos Discípulos de Cristo de Alexander Campbell continua a usar o nome "Igreja de Cristo" até hoje.)
Isto, juntamente com o uso do comum apelido hostil "mormonita" (logo abreviado para Mórmon), trouxe o desejo de um nome mais distinto que diferenciaria nossa igreja das muitas outras que usavam o mesmo nome.
Então, em Abril de 1834, sob a influência de Sidney Rigdon (de acordo com David Whitmer),[71] que tinha sido um pregador batista reformado com laços estreitos com Alexander Campbell antes de juntar-se à Igreja, o nome oficial da Igreja foi mudado para "Igreja dos Santos dos Últimos Dias".
Esta não foi uma tentativa de distanciar a Igreja do nome de Cristo ou de sua afirmação de ser a Igreja de Cristo. Em 1835, uma proclamação oficial da igreja se referiu à:
ascenção e progresso da Igreja de Cristo dos Santos dos Últimos Dias" [72]
A base para o nome atual da igreja veio em D&C 115:3, recebida em 26 de Abril de 1838: a "Igreja de Jesus Cristo dos Santos dos Últimos Dias". Observe como este nome combina elementos do original e do nome inspirado por Rigdon.
Em 1851, quando a igreja incorporou formalmente, o nome incluía o artigo inicial corporativo "The" ("A") e a hifenização britânica de "Latter-day" ("Últimos Dias"), assim se tornando o nome formal que usamos até hoje, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" ("A Igreja de Jesus Cristo dos Santos dos Últimos Dias"). Outros grupos que se separaram da Igreja, como os Strangites e a Reorganização {RLDS, agora Comunidade de Cristo}, mantiveram o "Latter Day" original sem hífen em seus nomes formais.
Esta tabela demonstra que os membros da Igreja sempre enxergaram a si mesmos como cristãos e membros da "Igreja de Jesus Cristo".
Journal or Series | Church of Christ | Church of Jesus Christ | Church of Jesus Christ of LDS | Latter-day Saints alone | Mormon Church |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evening and Morning Star (1832-1834) | 115 | 1 | xx | 0 | 0 |
Messenger and Advocate (1834-1837) | 33 | 0 | xx | 0 | 1 |
Elders Journal (1837-1838) | 10 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0 |
Times and Seasons (1839-1846) | 118 | 13 | 24 | 47 | 4 |
Journal of Discourses 26 vols. (1839-1886)
1438 sermons |
167 | 59 | 308 | 3255 | 10 |
Collected Discourses 5 vols. (1886-1898)
432 sermons |
149 | 15 | 139 | 1121 | 7 |
General Conference Reports, (1880, 1897-1970) | 780 | 671 | 3180 | 6291 | 333 [73] |
Millennial Star (incomplete study) | - | 84 | - | - | - |
The Seer | 0 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
xx = o nome "Igreja de Jesus Cristo dos Santos dos Últimos Dias" não foi usado porque esse nome ainda não estava em uso durante a publicação do periódico.
Fonte: Ted Jones, pesquisador da FairMormon, comunicado privado (7 de Abril de 2007); atualizado 1 de Abril de 2010.
[Boyd K.] Packer disse o seguinte: "Há uma tentação para o escritor ou o professor de história da Igreja para querer contar tudo, se é digno ou fé promovendo ou não. Algumas coisas que são verdadeiras não são muito úteis". Joseph usando uma pedra em um chapéu, em vez de as placas de ouro para traduzir o Livro de Mórmon não é uma verdade útil? O fato de que existem várias histórias conflitantes da Primeira Visão não é uma verdade útil? O fato de que Joseph Smith foi envolvido em poliandria quando D&C 132:61, condena-o como "adultério" não é uma verdade útil?
|
Elder Packer deu um discurso a educadores de religião chamado “O manto é muito, muito maior do que o intelecto” [74]. A citação acima se tornou uma das favoritas dos críticos como uma forma de demonstrar que a Igreja suprime verdade ou pensamento intelectual.
Uma crítica comum às palavras do Elder Packer é representada pela seguinte citação de D. Michael Quinn:
“Elder Packer requer que todo historiador mórmon demonstre e afirme que “a mão do Senhor [esteve] em todas as horas e em todos os momentos da Igreja desde seu princípio até agora”.
- - D. Michael Quinn, “On Being a Mormon Historian” [Sobre ser um historiador mórmon], 80. [75]
Isso não reflete precisamente as palavras do Elder Packer, tendo em vista que ele falava não para “historiadores mórmons” – ele estava, na verdade, se dirigindo a membros do SEI, o Sistema Educacional da Igreja. O Elder Packer deixa bem claro para quem estava se dirigindo:
Vocês, professores do seminário e alguns de vocês homens do instituto e da BYU estarão ensinando a história da Igreja neste ano. Essa é uma oportunidade sem precedentes nas vidas de seus alunos de aumentarem sua fé e testemunho da divindade desta obra. Seu objetivo deve ser o de fazê-los ver a mão do Senhor em todas as horas e em todos os momentos da Igreja desde seu princípio até agora.
O SEI é composto por funcionários da Igreja que foram contratados para ensinar sua doutrina e promover a fé de seus membros mais jovens. Certamente está dentro dos interesses da Igreja o de insistir de que a perspectiva adotada no ensino de História da Igreja em suas classes de religião seja a de apoiar e não de destruir a fé. É certo que o estudo do SEI de história não é um mero exercício acadêmico, mas também possui um objetivo espiritual.
Dallin H. Oaks fez o seguinte comentário perturbador no documentário da PBS, "Os mórmons": "É errado para criticar os líderes da Igreja, mesmo que a crítica seja verdadeira."
|
|
Elder Dallin H. Oaks is claimed to have made the following comment at a Latter-day Saint Student Association fireside in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on 4 May 1986:
It’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true.
This quote is taken out of context by critics of the Church to imply that one should accept anything a Church leader says as true, even if it is not.
Elder Oaks answers this claim himself in an interview with Helen Whitney for the PBS special "The Mormons." off-site In the following transcript, "HW" is "Helen Whitney" and "DHO" is "Dallin H. Oaks":
HW: You used an interesting phrase, “Not everything that’s true is useful.” Could you develop that as someone who’s a scholar and trying to encourage deep searching?
DHO: The talk where I gave that was a talk on “Reading Church History” — that was the title of the talk. And in the course of the talk I said many things about being skeptical in your reading and looking for bias and looking for context and a lot of things that were in that perspective. But I said two things in it and the newspapers and anybody who ever referred to the talk only referred to [those] two things: one is the one you cite, “Not everything that’s true is useful,” and that [meant] “was useful to say or to publish.” And you tell newspapers any time (media people) [that] they can’t publish something, they’ll strap on their armor and come out to slay you! [Laughs.]
I also said something else that has excited people: that it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord. One can work to correct them by some other means, but don’t go about saying that they misbehaved when they were a youngster or whatever. Well, of course, that sounds like religious censorship also.
But not everything that’s true is useful. I am a lawyer, and I hear something from a client. It’s true, but I’ll be disciplined professionally if I share it because it’s part of the attorney-client privilege. There’s a husband-wife privilege, there’s a priest-penitent privilege, and so on. That’s an illustration of the fact that not everything that’s true is useful to be shared.
In relation to history, I was speaking in that talk for the benefit of those that write history. In the course of writing history, I said that people ought to be careful in what they publish because not everything that’s true is useful. See a person in context; don’t depreciate their effectiveness in one area because they have some misbehavior in another area — especially from their youth. I think that’s the spirit of that. I think I’m not talking necessarily just about writing Mormon history; I’m talking about George Washington or any other case. If he had an affair with a girl when he was a teenager, I don’t need to read that when I’m trying to read a biography of the Founding Father of our nation. (See "Elder Oaks Interview Transcript from PBS Documentary" on mormonnewsroom.org)
Dallin H. Oaks
This is an edited version of a talk delivered at a Latter-day Saint Student Association fireside in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on 4 May 1986.
.....
The critical consideration is how we use the truth. When he treated this same subject in his letter to the Romans, Paul said, “If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy him not with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” (Rom. 14:15.) A Christian who has concern for others exercises care in how he uses the truth. Such care does not denigrate the truth; it ennobles it.
Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. For example, it is wrong to make statements of fact out of an evil motive, even if the statements are true. It is wrong to threaten to reveal embarrassing facts unless money is paid, even if the facts are true. We call that crime blackmail. Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals are forbidden to reveal facts they have received in confidence, even though those facts are true.
Just as the principle of justice must be constrained by the principle of mercy (see Alma 42), so must the use of truth be disciplined by the principle of love. As Paul instructed the Ephesians, we “grow up into” Christ by “speaking the truth in love.” (See Eph. 4:15.)[76]
Quem se importa se você recebeu a informação de um estranho, televisão, livro, revista em quadrinhos, guardanapo, e até mesmo a assustadora internet? Eles são todos os médiuns ou condutas de informação. É a informação em si, a sua precisão, e sua relevância que você precisa para se concentrar e se preocupar.
....
Sob o conselho do Elder Quentin L. Cook, FairMormon e sites não oficiais SUD apologéticos são fontes anti-mórmons que devem ser evitados. Não só eles apresentam materiais Mórmons " da internet que ampliam, exageram, e em alguns casos inventam deficiências de primeiros líderes da Igreja", mas eles fornecem muitas respostas ridículas com falácias lógicas e omissões, deixando os membros confuso e pendurado com uma versão bizarra do mormonismo.
|
|
Um crítico da Igreja fez a seguinte declaração:
Elder Quentin L. Cook fez o seguinte comentário na Conferência de Outubro de 2012 "Algumas pessoas tem se emergido em materiais na Internet que magnifica, exagera, e em alguns casos inventam referências de antigos líderes. Então eles tiraram conclusões incorretas que podem afetar o testemunho. Qualquer que tenha feito tais escolhas pode se arrepender e ser renovado espiritualmente."
Elder Dieter Uchtdorf disse o seguinte em seu discurso do SEI "O que é a verdade?": "Lembre-se que nessa época de informação, há muitos que criam dúvidas a respeito de tudo e qualquer coisa em qualquer época e todo lugar. Você encontrará até mesmo aqueles que legam ainda que possuem evidência que a Terra é plana. Que a Lua é um Holograma e que certas estrelas de cinema são alienígenas. É sempre bom termos em mente que só porque algo é impresso, aparece na Internet, é frequentemente repetido ou possui um grande número de seguidores não significa que é verdade".
Quem se importa se você recebeu a informação de um estranho, televisão, livro, revista, gibi, guardanapo e até mesmo da assustadora Internet? Eles são todos meios de condução de informação. É a informação, sua precisão e sua relevância que precisamos focalizar e nos preocupar. Com todo esse discurso de Autoridades Gerais contra a assustadora Internet é como se "pesquisar", "questionar" e "duvidar" é a nova pornografia.[77]
Ele também declara que "Sob o conselho do Elder Quentin Cook, FairMormon e sites apologéticos não oficiais da Igreja são antimormon e devem ser evitados. Eles não apenas apresentam a Mórmons "materiais na Internet que magnifica, exagera, e em alguns casos inventam referências de antigos líderes" mas eles provém muitas respostas ridículas com falácias lógicas e omissões, enquanto deixam membros confusos e pendurados em uma versão bizarra do Mormonismo."
O autor emprega a hipérbole ("a assustadora Internet") para fazer parecer como se Elder Cook and Uchtdorf estão orientando membros a evitar a utilização da Internet. Ele aparentemente não compreendeu o ponto em questão inteiramente.
De acordo com a porção da citação de Elder Uchtdorf que aparece apenas antes da porção citada pelo autor, não importa por que meio você recebe a informação:
só porque algo é impresso, aparece na Internet, é frequentemente repetido ou possui um grande número de seguidores não significa que é verdade
Elder Uchtdorf não está orentando membros a evitar coisas que "aparecem na internet", assim como não está falando que devem evitar coisas "impressas". Ele tem de fato preciamente respondido a questão o autor perguntou depois de o autor apresentar o sua citação.
Elder Cook está falando sobre o tipos de materiais na Internet que alguém acompanha:
Alguns tem se imergido em materiais da Internet que "magnificam, exageram e em alguns casos inventam referências de antigos líderes da Igreja.
Mai uma vez, isto não é uma admoestação de Elder Cook para que membros evitem a "assustadora internet".
Em todas as respostas da FairMormon, nós sempre em primeiro lugar citamos a posição relevante da Igreja, a menos que a Igreja não possua posição oficial sobre um assunto. O lembrete das respostas sempre será baseado nos ensinamentos da Igreja sobre o assunto.
FairMormon não "magnifica, exagera" ou "inventa referência de antigos membros da Igreja." Alegar que profetas são humanos e capazes de erros não é uma "deficiência". Ironicamente, isto é o que a própria Igreja tem alegado.
Finalmente, leia a declaração do autor cuidadosamente: Ele alega que a FairMormon provê "muitas respostas ridículas com falácias lógicas e omissões." O autor, ironicamente, comete a falácia lógica de "apelar para o ridículo" o qual de acordo com a Wikipédia,
Apelar para o ridículo... é uma falácia informal que apresenta o argumento de um oponente como absurdo, ridículo, ou de qualquer forma engraçado, para o fim específico de gerar uma conclusão precipitada de que o argumento carece de qualquer substância, que seria digna de consideração. Wikipedia entry
Vamos ver ... Uchtdorf começa a falar sobre a "era da informação (internet)", centra-se na extrema internet estereotipadas "teorias da conspiração" usando hipérboles, e, em seguida, afirma: "... impresso em papel, aparece na internet ..." , seguido por "tem um poderoso grupo de seguidores." é óbvio que - como Cook - Uchtdorf está se concentrando na internet e tentar dar a entender que a internet é um território perigoso para testemunhos e encontrar a verdade.
|
A setembro Seis eram seis membros de A Igreja de Jesus Cristo dos Santos dos Últimos Dias que foram excomungados ou desassociados pela LDS em setembro de 1993, supostamente por publicar trabalhos acadêmicos sobre o mormonismo ou criticando doutrina ou a liderança da Igreja. "Poucos meses antes de setembro Six, Boyd K. Packer fez o seguinte comentário a respeito dos três "inimigos" da Igreja: "os perigos falo de vir do movimento gay-lésbico, o movimento feminista (sendo que ambos são relativamente novo), e a sempre desafio atual dos chamados estudiosos ou intelectuais. "- Boyd K. Packer, All-Igreja Conselho Coordenador, 18 maio de 1993
|
Seis indivíduos foram disciplinados pela Igreja em setembro de 1993. Os defensores dos disciplinados e críticos de A Igreja os apelidaram de "September Six". Os seis indivíduos eram:
Avraham Gileadi nunca falou publicamente sobre os motivos de sua excomunhão, nunca foi solicitado a retirar quaisquer publicações ou declarações, e voltou a plena atividade na Igreja. Maxine Hanks retornou à Igreja a partir de 2012.
Os líderes da Igreja raramente tornam públicas as razões ou evidências apresentadas em conselhos disciplinares. Deste modo, os ex-membros são capazes de reivindicar o que quiserem sobre excomunhão sem contradição da Igreja. D. Michael Quinn alega que sua excomunhão foi o resultado direto de sua pesquisa histórica sobre as origens do Mormonismo. Ele se recusou a comparecer ao seu próprio conselho disciplinar, dizendo a seu presidente de estaca que era "um processo que foi projetado para me punir por ser o mensageiro de evidência histórica indesejada e intimidar-me a trabalhar mais na história Mórmon". [3] Apesar da crença de Quinn de que sua disciplina da Igreja foi toda sobre a sua pesquisa histórica, seu presidente de estaca escreveu, em resposta, no dia 11 de Maio de 1993, dizendo: "Há outras questões que eu preciso falar com você, que não estão relacionados com os seus escritos históricos. Estes assuntos são muito sensíveis e altamente confidenciais e é por isso que eu não mencionei-os antes, por escrito".[78]
Janeiro 1994:
Declaração do Conselho da Primeira Presidência e do Quórum dos Doze Apóstolos de A Igreja de Jesus Cristo dos Santos dos Últimos Dias:
À luz da ampla publicidade dada aos seis últimos conselhos disciplinares da Igreja em Utah, acreditamos ser útil reafirmar a posição da Primeira Presidência e do Quórum dos Doze Apóstolos. Lamentamos profundamente a perda de membros da Igreja por parte de todos. As consequências sentidas ao longo do tempo pelos indivíduos e suas famílias são muito reais.
Em suas responsabilidades de liderança, os líderes locais de A Igreja podem solicitar esclarecimentos e outras orientações de Autoridades Gerais da Igreja. As Autoridades Gerais tem a obrigação de ensinar os princípios e políticas e fornecer informações que podem ser úteis em aconselhar membros pelos quais os líderes locais são responsáveis. Em matéria de disciplina de A Igreja, as Autoridades Gerais não direcionam as decisões dos conselhos disciplinares locais. Além disso, o direito de recurso está aberto a qualquer um que sinta que ele ou ela tenha sido injustamente tratado por um conselho disciplinar.
É difícil de explicar as medidas disciplinares da Igreja aos representantes dos meios de comunicação. Considerações de confidencialidade restringem comentários públicos de líderes de Igreja em tais questões privadas. Temos a responsabilidade de preservar a pureza doutrinária de A Igreja. Estamos unidos nesse objetivo. O Profeta Joseph Smith ensinou um princípio eterno, quando explicou: "Aquele homem que se levanta para condenar outro, encontrando falta para com a Igreja, dizendo que "ele está fora do caminho", enquanto ele próprio (o que julga) é justo, então podem ter certeza, que esse homem está no caminho da apostasia".[79] Em instrução a Seus Doze Discípulos no novo mundo sobre aqueles que não se arrependem, o Salvador disse:" Mas se ele não se arrepender, não será contado com o meu povo, a fim de não destruir meu povo.... "(3 Néfi 18:31, ver também Mosias 26:36 e Alma 05:59.) O Profeta também afirmou que "[1] de apóstatas, os fiéis receberam as mais severas perseguições."[79]:67 Este continua a ser o caso hoje.
A política de longa data da disciplina de A Igreja, é descrita em Doutrina e Convênios: "Cremos que todas as sociedades religiosas têm o direito de lidar com seus membros, (...) de acordo com as regras e os regulamentos dessas sociedades; desde que tal ação se limite à participação e posição da pessoa na sociedade a que pertença (...) Podem, apenas, excomungá-los de sua sociedade e negar-lhes participação.” (D&C 134:10.)
Os membros fiéis da Igreja podem distinguir entre meras diferenças de opinião daquelas atividades formalmente definidas como apostasia. Apostasia refere-se a membros da Igreja que "repetidamente agem em clara, aberta e deliberada oposição pública à Igreja ou a seus líderes, ou persistem no ensino como doutrina de A Igreja , informações que não sejam a doutrina de A Igreja depois de serem corrigidos por seu bispo ou autoridade superior, ou continuam a seguir os ensinamentos de seitas apóstatas (tais como aqueles que defendem o casamento plural) depois de serem corrigidos."[80]
Os líderes gerais e locais de A Igreja continuarão a fazer o seu dever, e os membros fiéis da Igreja compreenderão.
Como líderes de A Igreja de Jesus Cristo dos Santos dos Últimos Dias, estendemos nosso amor a todos e constantemente oramos para que o Senhor, a quem esta Igreja pertence, abençoe aqueles que amam e buscam a verdade divina.
Signed:
O Conselho da Primeira Presidência e
O Quórum dos Doze Apóstolos [81]
Fortalecimento da Comissão de Membros da Igreja (SCMC): O braço de espionagem e monitoramento da Igreja. É secreto e a maioria dos membros ter tido conhecimento da sua existência desde a sua criação, em 1985, depois de o Presidente Ezra Taft Benson assumiu. Élder Jeffrey R. Holland admitiu que ainda existe (02:29), em março de 2012. A evidência histórica e pontos a missão principal da SCMC ser para caçar e expor intelectuais e / ou membros descontentes que estão influenciando outros membros de pensar e pergunta , apesar da afirmação da Holanda que é um comitê principalmente para lutar contra a poligamia.
|
The Strengthening Church Members Committee has been described as a "clipping service" which kept track of public statements by Church members who openly criticized the Church in the media. Some have accused the committee of hunting down and exposing historians and intellectuals in order to subject them to Church discipline.
Although a "clipping service" probably made sense back in 1985, in the internet-rich world of the present, it seems somewhat anachronistic. Anyone with Internet access can likely find any information more quickly than it could have been "clipped" from newspapers in 1985.
The following is from the Church News, August 22, 1992 off-site
First Presidency statement cites scriptural mandate for Church committee
Generally, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not respond to criticism levied against its work. But in light of extensive publicity recently given to false accusations of so-called secret Church committees and files, the First Presidency has issued the following statement:
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was established in 1830 following the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ to the Prophet Joseph Smith in upstate New York. This sacred event heralded the onset of the promised `restitution of all things.' Many instructions were subsequently given to the Prophet including Section 123 of the Doctrine and Covenants:" `And again, we would suggest for your consideration the propriety of all the saints gathering up a knowledge of all the facts, and sufferings and abuses put upon them. . . .
" `And also of all the property and amount of damages which they have sustained, both of character and personal injuries. . . .
" `And also the names of all persons that have had a hand in their oppressions, as far as they can get hold of them and find them out.
" `And perhaps a committee can be appointed to find out these things, and to take statements and affidavits; and also to gather up the libelous publications that are afloat;
" `And all that are in the magazines, and in the encyclopedias, and all the libelous histories that are published. . . . (Verses 1-5.)'
"Leaders and members of the Church strive to implement commandments of the Lord including this direction received in 1839. Because the Church has a non-professional clergy, its stake presidents and bishops have varied backgrounds and training. In order to assist their members who have questions, these local leaders often request information from General Authorities of the Church.
"The Strengthening Church Members Committee was appointed by the First Presidency to help fulfill this need and to comply with the cited section of the Doctrine and Covenants. This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics. It is a General Authority committee, currently comprised of Elder James E. Faust and Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. They work through established priesthood channels, and neither impose nor direct Church disciplinary action.
"Members who have questions concerning Church doctrine, policies, or procedures have been counseled to discuss those concerns confidentially with their local leaders. These leaders are deeply aware of their obligation to counsel members wisely in the spirit of love, in order to strengthen their faith in the Lord and in His great latter-day work."
- The First Presidency
The Committee apparently still exists, as noted in the Jeffery R. Holland BBC interview in March 2012. We do not know what function the committee performs, if any.
John Sweeney: What is the Strengthening Church Members Committee?
Elder Holland: The Strengthening Church Members Committee was born some years ago to protect against predatory practices of polygamists.
Sweeney: I asked what it is, not was
Holland: That is what it is…
Sweeney: So it does still exist?
Holland: It does still exist...it does still exist…
Sweeney: And it....looks at....it’s there to defend the church against polygamists?
Holland: Principally, that is still its principal task.
Sweeney: So what is its subsidiary task?
Holland: I just....suppose to....to be protective generally, just to watch and to care for any insidious influence. But for all intents and purposes, that’s all that I know about it....is that it’s primarily there to guard against polygamy. That would be the substantial part of the work. I’m not on that committee so I don’t know much about it.
N. Eldon Tanner, primeiro conselheiro na Primeira Presidência, fez uma Mensagem da Primeira Presidência na agosto 1979 Ensign, que inclui a seguinte declaração: "Quando o profeta fala o debate acaba."
|
|
N. Eldon certa vez disse "Quando o profeta fala, o debate está encerrado"
O Presidente Tanner está se referindo sobre muitos princípios morais específicos, o qual ele resume em seu discurso. Seu discurso não implica que cada indivíduo não possa pensar por si mesmo:
Por que deveria haver qualquer debate sobre princípios morais que confudem o mundo atualmente? Desde o princípio, o Senhor tem feito sua posição muito clara em relação a casamento, divórcio, vida familiar e amor aos filhos, imoralidade, castidade, virtude, e o importante e sagrado papel da mulher. Através de seu profeta atual, Ele reiterou os ensinamentos do Velho e Novo Testamento, que são claros sobre esses assuntos.
....
Para adquirir riquezas, muitos se empenham em tais debates de assuntos morais. A indústria doÁlcool, Tabaco e pornografia estão acumulando grande riqueza as custas do povo e de sua saúde. Com toda a evidência de pronografia infantil, é deplorável que qualquer pai permita qualquer criança ser explorada. Algumas crianças estão sendo negligenciadas e abusadas porque suas mães estão buscando prazeres mundanos e carreiras fora de seus lares. Muitos pais estão mais preocupados com seu sucesso financeiro do que com o bem estar de suas esposas e filhos.
Precisamos mudar isso. Não podemos servir a Deus e Mamon. De que lado estamos? Quando o profeta fala o debate está encerrado.
É injusto e desonesto remover citações de seu contexto com o objetivo de comparar a Igreja à Coréia do Norte ou ao governo no filme 1984.
Não importa se Tanner está falando sobre moralidade, política, filosofia, negócios, religião, ciência, finanças ou esportes. A própria idéia de que um único homem pode controlar e censurar o debate ea livre circulação de ideias e informações não só é anti-intelectualismo mas a agência anti-livre também. Este está "avançando na trave" de que o Élder Tanner estava dizendo e tentar aplicá-la a um espectro muito mais amplo de questões.
|
|
Algumas coisas que são verdadeiras não são muito úteis + É errado criticar os líderes da Igreja, mesmo que a crítica é verdadeira + espionagem e monitoramento sobre os membros + Intelectuais são perigosos + Quando o profeta fala o debate acaba + A obediência é a primeira Lei do Céu = Políticas e práticas que você esperaria encontrar em um sistema totalitário, como a Coreia do Norte ou George Orwell, 1984; não a partir do evangelho de Jesus Cristo.
|
|
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now