Public Opinion Does Not Drive Or Sway Lds Doctrine

[california boy]

I think the church leaders try to stay as close as possible to what the feel God wants them to do. Sometimes God gives them different direction than what they thought He wanted them to do.

Personally, I don't think the church will change their stance on homosexuals in the church. However there is a possibility that when gay marriage becomes legal in the United States, the church may possible reconsider a part of this policy and allow gays to be in committed married relationships. If church leaders did choose to allow that, the law of chastity would still be in place and would be in keeping with how the church views heterosexual relationships. I don't think that any public pressure will change this policy but rather the leaders doing what they feel God is directing them to do. This kind of change would be within keeping of past doctrinal changes. I am not even sure that it is doctrine that gays can not be married and be in full fellowship in the church. It seems to me right now, that is just church policy.

[Cobalt-70]

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

It is probably better described as the church bowing to changes in dress style and notions about modesty. Originally, the temple pattern was viewed as revealed and unchangeable. In 1906, Joseph F. Smith said that the 1840s garment design was "sacred, unchanged, and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them," and that it was a "grievous sin" to alter that 1840s design in the name of changing fashion trends. Nevertheless, quite a few changes have been made over the years in the name of changing fashion trends, including shortening the sleeves first to the elbows and then the shoulders, and shortening the leg cuff to just below the knees and then just above the knees (thus moving one particular mark off its original symbolic location), the introduction of two-piece designs, and the elimination of the tie-string (representing the "marriage covenant") and the collar (representing the "Lord's yoke").

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I haven't read his thesis, but I know quite a lot about the circumstances, and I don't think anyone can plausibly say that public opinion played no part at all.

On a related note, I've heard it theorized that Brigham Young instituted the racial ban and doctrine of black "cursedness" in the 1850s to appease pro-slavery Mormons. If that were true, this would be another example of Mormon doctrine/policy bowing to public trends, but I don't think it is true. I think the doctrine and policy were just simple racism.

[Mudcat]

In the face of public opinion, the Church merely presents another face, it doesn't change it's doctrine.

I look at two issues. They are the only "canonized" prophecies which seem to bring the the CoJCoLDS in line with public opinion. They are OD-1 and OD-2. Polygamy and race and the priesthood.

I suppose those two were just a coincidence and had nothing to do with public opinion.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The entire issue is, I think, incorrectly framed.

"One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to recieve truth. Let it come from where it may." - Joseph Smith

So if a concern is raised among "the masses" first and is only later addressed by authorized leadership, that's perfectly fine. If practices or doctrines change, there's nothing fishy going on; it's leadership responding to the needs of the saints. If a truth is had among the "heathens" before being ratified by the Church, why should that alarm anyone? Truth is truth. Prophets are fallible. Poring over the Journal of Discourses and trying to reconcile it all will drive you insane. We all learn line upon line, we're all inching forward together through the test of this world, with our personal revelations affecting how we act towards those around us. If someone's got a good idea, they try it out in their ward; if it could help the Church at large, the leaders ratify it and make it into a policy. If the policy becomes counterproductive, away it goes. Same thing happens in reverse, with the leadership suggesting changes that spread through the local areas. All done by the Spirit, if administered through the proper authorities. (For a good look at How It's Done, read Ed Kimball's paper, "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood" for BYU studies.)

It's all about continuing revelation and eternal progression, regardless of where it comes from. We believe that God will "yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom." It's all good! It's evolution, baby. The point is to have faith enough in each other that we can tolerate our missteps without fracturing the binding of the At-one-ment into a thousand different partisan sects.

(And as a further editorial note: I think the nekkidness issue is similarly overblown. Personally, I would have found the full nudity version far more symbolically meaningful, but we've become prudes about serious bodily symbolism in our modern age, preferring the vapid near-nudity of most magazines and then freaking out every time there's a nip-slip on live TV. /grumpiness)

Edited November 10, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Duncan]

Granted though, at least with the Priesthood ban, I would say that "public" would be certain public, not all people everywhere. As I have stated previously my Mum didn't even know that the blacks couldn't hold the Priesthood and hadn't even met a black Mormon till after. Blacks not holding the Priesthood just wasn't an issue to Canadians in 1978-also it happened in June of 1978 and yours truly was born in Sept. so Mummy had other things to think about!

[Cobalt-70]

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?

Read the records of the Reed Smoot hearings in the early 1900s, in which there was a public outcry against the fact that the temple ceremony up to that time contained an "oath of vengeance" where participants covenanted to pray (and teach their children, children's children, etc., to the 3rd and 4th generation to pray) that God would take vengeance on the United States for killing the "prophets" (Joseph and Hyrum Smith). Not long after the hearings, this oath disappeared from the ceremony.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Storm Rider]

Read the records of the Reed Smoot hearings in the early 1900s, in which there was a public outcry against the fact that the temple ceremony up to that time contained an "oath of vengeance" where participants covenanted to pray (and teach their children, children's children, etc., to the 3rd and 4th generation to pray) that God would take vengeance on the United States for killing the "prophets" (Joseph and Hyrum Smith). Not long after the hearings, this oath disappeared from the ceremony.

Just curious, exactly what do you mean by "not long after the hearing" the oath disappeared?

[Cobalt-70]

Just curious, exactly what do you mean by "not long after the hearing" the oath disappeared?

Well, I guess not immediately after. It was the 1820s. But it was the result of a committee that was appointed in 1919, and was part of the "Good Neighbor policy" of the church that also included removing other statements of vengeance in church hymns and manuals. It was certainly influenced by the Smoot hearings, and by the general need of the church not to be seen as subversive to the United States.

[Senator]

(And as a further editorial note: I think the nekkidness issue is similarly overblown. Personally, I would have found the full nudity version far more symbolically meaningful, but we've become prudes about serious bodily symbolism in our modern age, preferring the vapid near-nudity of most magazines and then freaking out every time there's a nip-slip on live TV. /grumpiness)

Ha!

The more I hear from you, the more I like you, man!

[Storm Rider]

Well, I guess not immediately after. It was the 1820s. But it was the result of a committee that was appointed in 1919, and was part of the "Good Neighbor policy" of the church that also included removing other statements of vengeance in church hymns and manuals. It was certainly influenced by the Smoot hearings, and by the general need of the church not to be seen as subversive to the United States.

Cobalt, that is the problem with so many of your deductions. You make such broad statements, but then facts don't really back them up. You speak as if you know what you are talking about, but in the end, it is all just your opinion being paraded as fact. This manner of writing is not honest; it is polemic at best. I encourage you to only state facts when facts actually support your position; otherswise, just begin with "I think".

[Senator]

You speak as if you know what you are talking about, but in the end, it is all just your opinion being paraded as fact. This manner of writing is not honest; it is polemic at best.

...and this is different from everyone else that posts here?

[Mark Beesley]

Nevertheless, quite a few changes have been made over the years in the name of changing fashion trends, including shortening the sleeves first to the elbows and then the shoulders, and shortening the leg cuff to just below the knees and then just above the knees (thus moving one particular mark off its original symbolic location), the introduction of two-piece designs, and the elimination of the tie-string (representing the "marriage covenant") and the collar (representing the "Lord's yoke").

Man, I wish I could find garments that fit me that had the leg cuff above the knee! Ah, the burdens of being short.

Anyway, I guess, based on your responses, that you recognize that your first comment may have been a bit broad. But, as Senator points out, that is a rather common style on this Board from LDS and non-LDS posters alike.

Take care.

[BCSpace]

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.

It seems quite obvious to me that BY was speaking more of an Adam Sr Adam Jr theory (just as nonofficial and nondoctrinal as Adam God). BY's first Lecture at the Veil, as recorded by Nuttall does include a statement about Adam being Jesus' father but just before that, BY distinguishes between God the Father (Elohim) and Michael (Adam), which lends further credence to Adam Sr Adam Jr. and removes another possible confirmation of Adam God as is usually the case I've found. It is interesting that the same lecture contains reference to Eve Sr. Eve Jr. which also has to be the case if there are two Adams.

Edited November 10, 2011 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

In the face of public opinion, the Church merely presents another face, it doesn't change it's doctrine.

I look at two issues. They are the only "canonized" prophecies which seem to bring the the CoJCoLDS in line with public opinion. They are OD-1 and OD-2. Polygamy and race and the priesthood.

I suppose those two were just a coincidence and had nothing to do with public opinion.

I don't agree that the latter had much to do with public opinion; the civil rights movement was largely over by then. However I would agree that public opinion drove changes to the first issue of plural marriage but I would not agree that any actual doctrine was changed, just the practice.

In the latter issue of the Priesthood, I also don't see any doctrine changed, just the practice; the doctrine merely being fulfilled that one day they would be able to have the priesthood. The fact remains that Abraham 1 is still scripture and the priesthood ban itself is not assumed to be an error by the Church though the methodology of determining who descends from Ham might be.

Edited November 10, 2011 by BCSpace

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt, that is the problem with so many of your deductions. You make such broad statements, but then facts don't really back them up. You speak as if you know what you are talking about, but in the end, it is all just your opinion being paraded as fact. This manner of writing is not honest; it is polemic at best. I encourage you to only state facts when facts actually support your position; otherswise, just begin with "I think".

Are you claiming that the removal of the oath of vengeance had nothing to do with the Smoot hearings? First Congress hauls Joseph F. Smith before Congress and asks questions about how Mormons make oaths in the temple that might be seen as subversive to the United States, which is a clear national embarrassment to the church, making all the major newspapers. Then, less than a year after Joseph F. dies, his successor appoints a committee to make the Mormon temple ceremony seem less subversive to the American mainstream. You don't see a causal connection?

[Duncan]

Are you claiming that the removal of the oath of vengeance had nothing to do with the Smoot hearings? First Congress hauls Joseph F. Smith before Congress and asks questions about how Mormons make oaths in the temple that might be seen as subversive to the United States, which is a clear national embarrassment to the church, making all the major newspapers. Then, less than a year after Joseph F. dies, his successor appoints a committee to make the Mormon temple ceremony seem less subversive to the American mainstream. You don't see a causal connection?

that is why i say that public opinion could drive leaders to get a revelation on the matter, otherwise if it ain't broke don't fix it-but I wonder though is it what exactley was going on in Temples that was public knowledge or was it that what was going on in Temples the public found offensive that leaders sought change?

[Cobalt-70]

It seems quite obvious to me that BY was speaking more of an Adam Sr Adam Jr theory (just as nonofficial and nondoctrinal as Adam God). BY's first Lecture at the Veil, as recorded by Nuttall does include a statement about Adam being Jesus' father but just before that, BY distinguishes between God the Father (Elohim) and Michael (Adam), which lends further credence to Adam Sr Adam Jr. and removes another possible confirmation of Adam God as is usually the case I've found. It is interesting that the same lecture contains reference to Eve Sr. Eve Jr. which also has to be the case if there are two Adams.

The 1877 Endowment ceremony contained every element that Brigham Young had ever taught about the Adam-God doctrine, including: (1) that Adam was an immortal being born on another earth who had previously risen the stature of godhood. (2) that Adam and Eve were the parents of all the spirit children of this earth, and thus was our Heavenly Father, (3) that Adam was also the same Michael who was one of the three creator gods also including Elohim and Jehovah, (4) that by eating the fruits of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve lost their immortality and became mortal, but at the end of their mortal life they retained their bodies, and (5) that Jesus was the first begotten of Adam in the spirit world, and the literal son of Adam (with Mary) in the flesh.

To be fair, the full Adam-God doctrine was apparently not in the temple ceremony for very long. It might have only survived until Young's death later that same year. Or it might have been included in some temples, but not others. (Things were not very standardized until the 20th century.) But even after this removal, there still remained a vague statement that the story of Eve's creation from Adam's rib was "simply figurative," an obscure remnant of the Adam-God doctrine that remained in the ceremony until 1990. I think that its inclusion by Brigham Young in the temple ceremony, for however brief a time, means that it was official LDS doctrine at least for that brief moment (assuming that Young's prior passionate teaching of it had not made it effectively "official" before that time).

Edited November 11, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

that is why i say that public opinion could drive leaders to get a revelation on the matter, otherwise if it ain't broke don't fix it-but I wonder though is it what exactley was going on in Temples that was public knowledge or was it that what was going on in Temples the public found offensive that leaders sought change?

Here is what I think the mechanism was: The church leadership discovered (1) that some new converts were turned off after they entered the temple, by the Masonic, violent, anti-American, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, anti-feminist, nudity/intimate touching, or Adam-God elements, and (2) were sensitive to ridicule against the church, and believed that these elements were a roadblock for some people who might otherwise convert. Therefore, they formed a committee to study the issue and make recommendations to make the ceremony less off-putting, and then ultimately they of course prayed about the committee's recommendations and felt it was the correct way to proceed.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Craig Paxton]

The 1977 Endowment ceremony contained every element that Brigham Young had ever taught about the Adam-God doctrine, including: (1) that Adam was an immortal being born on another earth who had previously risen the stature of godhood. (2) that Adam and Eve were the parents of all the spirit children of this earth, and thus was our Heavenly Father, (3) that Adam was also the same Michael who was one of the three creator gods also including Elohim and Jehovah, (4) that by eating the fruits of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve lost their immortality and became mortal, but at the end of their mortal life they retained their bodies, and (5) that Jesus was the first begotten of Adam in the spirit world, and the literal son of Adam (with Mary) in the flesh.

To be fair, the full Adam-God doctrine was apparently not in the temple ceremony for very long. It might have only survived until Young's death later that same year. Or it might have been included in some temples, but not others. (Things were not very standardized until the 20th century.) But even after this removal, there still remained a vague statement that the story of Eve's creation from Adam's rib was "simply figurative," an obscure remnant of the Adam-God doctrine that remained in the ceremony until 1990. I think that its inclusion by Brigham Young in the temple ceremony, for however brief a time, means that it was official LDS doctrine at least for that brief moment (assuming that Young's prior passionate teaching of it had not made it effectively "official" before that time).

did you mean "the 1877 endowment" rather than 1977???

[Cobalt-70]

did you mean "the 1877 endowment" rather than 1977???

Yes. Thanks.

[BCSpace]

It seems quite obvious to me that BY was speaking more of an Adam Sr Adam Jr theory (just as nonofficial and nondoctrinal as Adam God). BY's first Lecture at the Veil, as recorded by Nuttall does include a statement about Adam being Jesus' father but just before that, BY distinguishes between God the Father (Elohim) and Michael (Adam), which lends further credence to Adam Sr Adam Jr. and removes another possible confirmation of Adam God as is usually the case I've found. It is interesting that the same lecture contains reference to Eve Sr. Eve Jr. which also has to be the case if there are two Adams.

The 1877 Endowment ceremony contained every element that Brigham Young had ever taught about the Adam-God doctrine, including: (1) that Adam was an immortal being born on another earth who had previously risen the stature of godhood. (2) that Adam and Eve were the parents of all the spirit children of this earth, and thus was our Heavenly Father, (3) that Adam was also the same Michael who was one of the three creator gods also including Elohim and Jehovah, (4) that by eating the fruits of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve lost their immortality and became mortal, but at the end of their mortal life they retained their bodies, and (5) that Jesus was the first begotten of Adam in the spirit world, and the literal son of Adam (with Mary) in the flesh.

Yes. Adam God falls down on the differentiation of Elohim and Michael. It is absolutely impossible when that distinction is made and it is made quite often.

[Storm Rider]

Are you claiming that the removal of the oath of vengeance had nothing to do with the Smoot hearings? First Congress hauls Joseph F. Smith before Congress and asks questions about how Mormons make oaths in the temple that might be seen as subversive to the United States, which is a clear national embarrassment to the church, making all the major newspapers. Then, less than a year after Joseph F. dies, his successor appoints a committee to make the Mormon temple ceremony seem less subversive to the American mainstream. You don't see a causal connection?

If this were a unique circumstance, then I may agree with you. However, the facts are that the endowment has evolved throughout the history of the Church. Incidentally, each change shortened the length of the Endowment; from initially taking hours to now about one hour and thirty minutes.

Additionally, the Mormons were persecuted at every turn and now they ask their members to commit to praying for justice. I can name a few groups that have done exactly that...pray for justice. You actually think that Mormons and the LDS Church has every really cared about what others think of them? If so, we have done a pitiful job of demonstrating such care.

[Cobalt-70]

Yes. Adam God falls down on the differentiation of Elohim and Michael. It is absolutely impossible when that distinction is made and it is made quite often.

To Brigham Young, the name Elohim was either used (1) as a generic word for God, the way it is used in the Bible, or (2) as the specific name of the God of Adam. In other words, the Elohim that appears in the temple ceremony was our "Heavenly Grandfather" according to the Adam-God doctrine. It was only in 1916 that Elohim officially became our Heavenly Father.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Cobalt-70