Public Opinion Does Not Drive Or Sway Lds Doctrine

[BCSpace]

I posted this on another board, mostly antiMormon, and thought I'd throw it out over here to see if it could stand the heat from a more believing perpsective:

But the reality is that the doctrine of the Church is not based on public opinion but on revelation from God and God has already stated his opinion on homosexuality through His prophets. Those who would argue public opinion should remind themselves that the Church still practices plural marriage; it's still a doctrine. And the Church has not repudiated not allowing descendents of Cain to have the priesthood for a time. In the face of public opinion, the Church merely presents another face, it doesn't change it's doctrine.

I think this principle will be tested over the next decade or two regarding the issue of homosexuality and I predict it will come out unscathed. The main topic of this thread is NOT homosexuality but the principle outlined in blue above; though one could certainly use it, and the other issues I mentioned, as an example.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

That is alway the challenge, to live up to what God has called us to do.

[cdowis]

It is important, as you point out, to understand that there is a difference between a doctrine, and the practice of that doctrine, such as polygamy. We also gain a greater understanding and application of a doctrine, such as loving the sinner and not the sin.

External circumstances have clearly driven those changes in practice and application of doctrines.

Edited November 8, 2011 by cdowis

[BCSpace]

It is important, as you point out, to understand that there is a difference between a doctrine, and the practice of that doctrine, such as polygamy

I think plural marriage an excellent example. Without implying that I think we should or must practice it in the future, the Church has not said previous plural marriages are invalid or were a mistake. We still seal men to multiple women if the previous ones are deceased. Scripture implies it is practiced from time to time, etc. In my mind, this issue and the priesthood issue represent the most change in presentation without the doctrine actually having been changed.

With homosexuality, we certainly have presented a different face, or have emphasized other aspects that were already part of the doctrine but I don't see any actual doctrinal changes.

The Utah Compact might be another example. We discussed this at length recently in our Stake Bishopric meeting and there really is nothing about it that would preclude anyone from taking a strong anti illegal immigration position in the sense of conflicting with the Church's view.

So imho, the Church has been generally very adroit in the PR arena since Wilford Woodruff. There are those who believe the Church has changed it's doctrines, but really, we have not. So perhaps a sub issue is people's expectations. Those who believe we have changed in these areas are going to be very disappointed.

Edited November 8, 2011 by BCSpace

[elguanteloko]

If by "Doctrine" you mean what is written, then this won't (probably) change and I don't think this is what we mean when we say the Church is greatly swayed by the present culture.

If you write that "God was once a man like we are now", your followers don't need to change what you wrote or come out and state that it was wrong. We can, however, say the Lord who inspired you now wants us to practice something else and we can make your statement aside as something that wasn't very clear or we can put more emphasis in the risk that this wasn't recorded reliably, or probably we could just say you meant something else than what was believed by other contemporaries of yours, etc.

After all, we have different interpretations of the Bible and many denominations for a reason, right? It wasn't like Protestants had to say Jesus was wrong when he said Peter was the rock upon which Christ was going to build his Church.

Edited November 8, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Freedom]

An argument can be made that the new testament vision to teach the gospel to non-jews was an example succumbing to public pressure as the number of non Israelites in Palestine was increasing and converts from judaism was shrinking. This would have made it a very convenient revelation.

[Cobalt-70]

I think this principle will be tested over the next decade or two regarding the issue of homosexuality and I predict it will come out unscathed. The main topic of this thread is NOT homosexuality but the principle outlined in blue above; though one could certainly use it, and the other issues I mentioned, as an example.

The church's position on homosexuality has already changed in the last decade or so. No longer is homosexuality either a disease or a personal failing. Gays and lesbians can go to the temple, and gays and lesbians are not required to enter mixed-orientation marriages.

Other examples where LDS Church doctrine and policy have changed in conformity with public opinion: ordination of blacks, removal of Masonic and violent imagery from the temple ceremony, gradual shrinking of the temple garments, elimination of nudity in temple ceremonies, and dropping the Adam-God doctrine.

[Duncan]

I think that public opinion can drive the leaders to seek a revelation on the matter

[BCSpace]

The church's position on homosexuality has already changed in the last decade or so. No longer is homosexuality either a disease or a personal failing. Gays and lesbians can go to the temple, and gays and lesbians are not required to enter mixed-orientation marriages.

Other examples where LDS Church doctrine and policy have changed in conformity with public opinion: ordination of blacks, removal of Masonic and violent imagery from the temple ceremony, gradual shrinking of the temple garments, elimination of nudity in temple ceremonies,

Imho, I'm not seeing those as a change in doctrine though. Practices change. Reasons for why change. But where is the doctrine changing in any of those cases. For example, when was homosexuality being a disease considered doctrine? As for personal failing, what does that mean? Homosexuality is still sin (assuming lust is a sin) and isn't giving in to sin a personal failing?

and dropping the Adam-God doctrine

Another fine topic for debate as I don't believe the Church ever had Adam-God for an official doctrine.

An argument can be made that the new testament vision to teach the gospel to non-jews was an example succumbing to public pressure as the number of non Israelites in Palestine was increasing and converts from judaism was shrinking. This would have made it a very convenient revelation.

Is it possible that the notion of everyone being eligible predates the NT in the OT, BoM, or PofGP?

[Sky]

The church's position on homosexuality has already changed in the last decade or so. No longer is homosexuality either a disease or a personal failing. Gays and lesbians can go to the temple, and gays and lesbians are not required to enter mixed-orientation marriages.

Other examples where LDS Church doctrine and policy have changed in conformity with public opinion: ordination of blacks, removal of Masonic and violent imagery from the temple ceremony, gradual shrinking of the temple garments, elimination of nudity in temple ceremonies, and dropping the Adam-God doctrine.

I believe many of the things that have changed have more to do with policy than with doctrine. And as BCSpace said, some things that have changed I have to wonder if they really ever were doctrine in the first place.

And with a living prophet at the head with continuing revelation, it does not trouble me that some things have changed.

I'll give an example of something that has not changed to conform with public opinion: the Word of Wisdom. Many people enjoy a trip to Starbucks or a glass of good wine with their dinner. Has the Word of Wisdom changed to allow for this? No.

The way we treat homosexuals has improved, but has the Law of Chastity actually changed as far as the way it is interpreted and practiced? No.

[Calm]

. We still seal men to multiple women if the previous ones are deceased.

and women to multiple men when all are deceased.

[Mark Beesley]

We still seal men to multiple women if the previous ones are deceased.

Previous spouses do not have to be deceased in order to be sealed to a new spouse. Trust me, I know.

[Craig Paxton]

I posted this on another board, mostly antiMormon, and thought I'd throw it out over here to see if it could stand the heat from a more believing perpsective:

I think this principle will be tested over the next decade or two regarding the issue of homosexuality and I predict it will come out unscathed. The main topic of this thread is NOT homosexuality but the principle outlined in blue above; though one could certainly use it, and the other issues I mentioned, as an example.

Mormonism, like every other man made institution, is subject to caving to public pressure or being thrown on the dust bin of history. its just a fact of reality. Purhaps a better question might be...when hasn't Mormonism caved to public pressure when its survival is threatened?

Edited November 9, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Mark Beesley]

The church's position on homosexuality has already changed in the last decade or so.

No it hasn't. It has always been a sin to engage in sexual conduct with members of one's own gender. That has not changed.

No longer is homosexuality either a disease or a personal failing.

The Church has never had a position on the causes of homosexuality. Individual member may have, but the Church has not. There has been no change.

Gays and lesbians can go to the temple, and gays and lesbians are not required to enter mixed-orientation marriages.

No change here either. A person with homosexual attractions who was unmarried and committed to living a chaste life could always attend the temple.

Other examples where LDS Church doctrine and policy have changed in conformity with public opinion: ordination of blacks. . .

Get yourself a copy of Andrew Kimball's thesis on the revelation on the priesthood. You may think the change was because of public opinion. I don't. Kind of difficult to prove.

. . . removal of Masonic and violent imagery from the temple ceremony,

Can you idenfity some kind of literature or something that illustrates that there was any kind of public opinion regarding the imagery used in the Temple?

gradual shrinking of the temple garments,

Again, I'd be surprised if the public has ever expressed an opinion about LDS garment styles. What's your source?

elimination of nudity in temple ceremonies . . .

Damn! Did I miss something??? Really son, where do you get this stuff?

dropping the Adam-God doctrine.

Right, the public was outraged at Brigham's musings from the 19th Century. . .

Edited November 9, 2011 by Mark Beesley

[Mark Beesley]

I think that public opinion can drive the leaders to seek a revelation on the matter

I think that is probably true.

[BCSpace]

Mormonism, like every other man made institution, is subject to caving to public pressure or being thrown on the dust bin of history. its just a fact of reality. Purhaps a better question might be...when hasn't Mormonism caved to public pressure when its survival is threatened?

A good question to ask. For example, we could have joined a certain Christian council iirc if we had but dropped a certain doctrine or two. A side question you brought to mind is how many doctrines or moral policies do we have simply because people wouldn't stop asking about it?

We come across this bowing to public pressure criticism all the time and I'm thinking we can safely say no, the Church hasn't caved to public pressure even in those two big cases (plural marriage and the priesthood) and that we can (or maybe already we have) develop a concise and devastating counter to it.

We still seal men to multiple women if the previous ones are deceased.

Previous spouses do not have to be deceased in order to be sealed to a new spouse. Trust me, I know.

Ha!

Edited November 9, 2011 by BCSpace

[elguanteloko]

Mark, those that oppose your views on this issue do NOT mean by a "Church changing" as a set of official doctrinal statements about things (though it could). Read my first comment here, you aren't addressing Cobalt's point.

[Freedom]

Is it possible that the notion of everyone being eligible predates the NT in the OT, BoM, or PofGP?

From my perspective, the church in the Book of Mormon readily accepted non-Israelites into their ranks through baptism,.

[Freedom]

Mormonism, like every other man made institution, is subject to caving to public pressure or being thrown on the dust bin of history. its just a fact of reality. Purhaps a better question might be...when hasn't Mormonism caved to public pressure when its survival is threatened?

Do you belong to an organized religion or do you believe that the religion of the Old Testament was God made rather than man made? As you are aware, the God of the Old Testament did from time to time make changes to ensure his peoples' survival. God is not going to force wicked people to comply with His rules. God is so willing to make changes that He is even willing to let His church go into apostasy rather than be pig headed.

[David T]

I think that public opinion can drive the leaders to seek a revelation on the matter

Bingo.

I find it interesting and perhaps significant that most of the OT Prophets were outside the Ecclesiastical/Organizational Hierarchy, and were in fact calling them - the Priesthood and Sacerdotal Kings - to repentance on many key social issues - in fact, telling them that their participation in ritual ordinances were in many cases completely unwelcome to God, because as they were doing such they were oppressing the poor, and building up themselves in deep pride.

There are even times when the 'Hedge Around the Law', or perhaps the "Traditional Doctrinal Interpretation of Scripture" becomes more prominent than the scriptural text and foundational doctrines themselves, and needs to get a prophetic re-adjustment.

Polygamy-in-this-life-as-only-means-of-exaltation, and Blacks-Can't-Have-The-Priesthood being very good examples of false doctrinal assumptions that were not based on explicit revelation, but rather came from speculation and expansion and interpretation which became standardized.

The revelations halting those practices did cause a significant re-looking at the assumptions that had been built up among those defunct practices.

And in both cases, outside issues did cause a substantial part of them being pondered, studied, and considered.

Edited November 9, 2011 by nackhadlow

[elguanteloko]

Do you belong to an organized religion or do you believe that the religion of the Old Testament was God made rather than man made? As you are aware, the God of the Old Testament did from time to time make changes to ensure his peoples' survival. God is not going to force wicked people to comply with His rules. God is so willing to make changes that He is even willing to let His church go into apostasy rather than be pig headed.

(Possible response 1) Because the Church has been at risk of being slaughtered from the face of the planet the last 130 years, correct?

(Possible response 2) Because God can't help his people getting killed instead of changing something, correct?

Edited November 9, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Mark Beesley]

Mark, those that oppose your views on this issue do NOT mean by a "Church changing" as a set of official doctrinal statements about things (though it could). Read my first comment here, you aren't addressing Cobalt's point.

Gee, and I didn't think Cobalt was addressing your point . . . Heck,I can only address what Cobalt actually wrote, not what I think he/she meant to write. But, what do you think Cobalt's point was? It seemed to be that Church doctrines and policies change because of public opinion. What did he/she write that indicated a different point?

[Garden Girl]

Gays and lesbians can go to the temple, and gays and lesbians are not required to enter mixed-orientation marriages.

elimination of nudity in temple ceremonies,

Hello Cobalt-70...

Yes, but gays and lesbians must maintain the same obedience to the Law of Chastity that I, a heterosexual, must live and obey.

Second, you make it sound like there was open nudity in our temple ceremonies... non-LDS might find your statement confusing or disturbing... it should be clarified that there was no open nudity, i.e., there was always a garment that was worn that covered the entire body for modesty, AND such a ceremony was only performed in a women only or man only ceremony. You are correct, we no longer perform the ceremony in the same way.

As a former ordinance worker for six years, I can assure that we performed the ordinances with a spirit of respect and sacredness at all times.

GG

[Cobalt-70]

Another fine topic for debate as I don't believe the Church ever had Adam-God for an official doctrine.

Yes, maybe merely having the President of the Church repeatedly teach a doctrine over the pulpit at General Conference does not make a doctrine official. However, I think that when a doctrine enters the temple ceremony, as the Adam-God doctrine did in 1877, it has at the very least crossed the line from unofficial to official.

[Cobalt-70]

Second, you make it sound like there was open nudity in our temple ceremonies... non-LDS might find your statement confusing or disturbing... it should be clarified that there was no open nudity, i.e., there was always a garment that was worn that covered the entire body for modesty, AND such a ceremony was only performed in a women only or man only ceremony. You are correct, we no longer perform the ceremony in the same way.

As a former ordinance worker for six years, I can assure that we performed the ordinances with a spirit of respect and sacredness at all times.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "open." Some of the sensationalist anti-Mormon literature would leave the impression that this was some kind of hieros gamos-type ritual. But it was fairly discrete, and I think it was done behind a curtain. However, full nudity was originally part of the ceremony. The LDS Church has published photographs of the bathtubs in the Salt Lake Temple, circa 1912, where completely nude patrons sat while water was poured over them. Of course, women were only washed by priestesses, and men were only washed by male priests, and this took place before the main ceremony and was not witnessed by all the other patrons. Later, sometime in the 20th century after modesty concerns were raised, they started using a very loose drape, open at the sides, which you could describe as partial nudity, and only a small amount of water was used, so that the bathtubs were no longer needed. But again, modesty concerns called for a change, so that since 2005 there is no nudity at all. So it wasn't like