Elder Oaks' Oct 2013 Gen Con Address

[Scott Lloyd]

I would add that today's "policies" of racial priesthood ban and plural marriage were "doctrines" (and referred to as such) when they were practiced.

Plurality of wives, in concept, is still a doctrine. Whether or not it is implemented at any given time under mandate from God is a matter of policy.

[rockpond]

I would add that today's "policies" of racial priesthood ban and plural marriage were "doctrines" (and referred to as such) when they were practiced.

 

That's a good point.  The historical records seems to suggest that the racially-based priesthood/temple ban was, at one time, considered a doctrine.  Later is was termed a policy.  So maybe as we learn through ongoing revelation that something is not a truth from God, we determine that it was a policy instituted of men.  Just a thought.

 

As for plural marriage, I agree with Scott... was and is a doctrine.  When to practice it could be considered a policy but it's one that seems to come from God.  Though I suspect most people outside the church would consider that a change as much as anything that Elder Oaks is calling changes in their doctrines/policies.

[rongo]

Not what I was referring to.

 

We could pull out JoD quotes to argue that BY taught plural marriage was the only way to the highest level of exaltation.  But too much to debate on that one.  Why not go with a much simpler policy change:  interracial marriage.

President Kimball's statements on interracial marriage never even rose to the level of JoD quotes about polygamy. They are more on a par with his opinions against face cards.

 

I find that people who bring up that "BY taught plural marriage was the only way to the highest level of exaltation" are personally not first-hand familiar with Journal of Discourses. They quote quotes they have read from others, but they are not familiar with the scope and breadth of what was taught in JoD from 1851 to 1886. Despite well-known statements declaring polygamy to be an eternal, essential requirement for exaltation, there are other, less well-known statements, equally emphatic, that it could be ended. This includes Brigham Young. Not only in JoD, but also in CHC. Brigham Young actually held talks with President Grant and Vice President Colfax on what they thought surrendering polygamy would look like. These didn’t go anywhere, but the Brethren were thinking about it and at least envisioning what abandoning the practice would/could look like in the 1860s, without feeling like it was such an eternal unabandonable principle that ending the practice was inconceivable.

 

Several less well-known JD statements put total Church participation in polygamy at around 10%. This means that overwhelmingly, most members did not participate in it, despite emphatic statements that it is essential for exaltation. How do we explain that?

 

Quite obviously, at that time, for those who were specifically commanded to (by priesthood leaders, personally) and able to practice it, it was a binding commandment essential to *their* exaltation. But, members of the Church did not regard this as a rigid, hard-and-fast rule for everyone, worlds without end, or these vast numbers of members wouldn’t remain with the Church over time and generations. And, it wasn't perceived as being a blanket requirement for all people, essentially damning 90% of the Church at that time. Try retaining people with that kind of optimism and outlook!

 

I look at it how evangelicals cherry-pick Moroni 10 or 2 Nephi 25 to claim that we believe that Christ can only save us after all we can do (and we never do all we can do, so it's all hopeless under Mormonism). This isn't how anyone interprets or understands these scriptures, and people in JoD times didn't interpret or understand statements about the importance of polygamy how many people today think they did.

Edited October 7, 2013 by rongo

[omni]

Marriage between one man and one woman is not inconsistent with D&C 132. Even when plural marriage is present, each instance of marriage is an individual union. That is, the wives involved are not married to one another.

Scott, don't take this the wrong way, but wow that is some fantastic spin!

[wenglund]

Scott, don't take this the wrong way, but wow that is some fantastic spin!

 

Your use of the word 'spin" is, itself, a spin. Nicely done!

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[theplains]

It has always been the case that God will institute and rescind the practice of plural marriage to suit His purposes.

 

Did the Mormon version of Heavenly Father ever say that "three or more" will become one flesh?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[wenglund]

Did the Mormon version of Heavenly Father ever say that "three or more" will become one flesh?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

No.

 

However, if you can grasp how a non-Mormon man can, according to his version of Heavenly Father, become "one flesh" with his first wife, then divorce, and later become "one flesh" with his second wife, then divorce, and finally become "one flesh" with his third wife, then hopefully you can, by extension, grasp why it wouldn't be necessary or make sense for the Mormon version of Heavenly Father to say ""three or more will become one flesh."

 

By the same token, you and others may grasp the salience in Scott's explanation that: "Even when plural marriage is present, each instance of marriage is an individual union. That is, the wives involved are not married to one another."

 

There is a reason the word "plural" is used as a qualifier in the term "plural marriage." That is because there isn't just one marriage, but a plurality of marriages. This is the case whether the plural marriages are consecutive (by way of divorce) or concurrent.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[canard78]

Can anyone help me understand how I am supposed to interpret Elder Oaks' implication that our policies and doctrines have not and do not change?  Some have.  And to say that they don't/won't seems antithetical to a church guided by continuing revelation.

 

I don't have the exact quote cause it isn't published yet but he said something to the effect of:  Unlike some churches that change their policies and doctrine, ours are based upon unchangeable truths from God.

 

I agree that truths from God do not change but our understanding of them (as reflected in our policies/doctrines) has seemed to change.

 

Thoughts?

 

Hey, it's ok:

 

" …[N]ot every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church."

 

 

If God's commandments and doctrines "never change" then we can rule out lots of things that are called commandments and doctrines (because they have changed).

[theplains]

By the same token, you and others may grasp the salience in Scott's explanation that: "Even when plural marriage is present, each instance of marriage is an individual union. That is, the wives involved are not married to one another."

 

The 5 wives (as an example) are not married to one another but they are married to the

same husband - so the five share a union with the same man.  One could consider this

as one union or five unions, but I would view them as part of the same family, not 5

individual families.  So if a man has a son with one wife and a daughter with another wife,

the male and female are brother and sister within the same family.  When introducing

his wives and children at a social function, he would probably use the phrase "This is my

family" instead of "These are my families".  Also, in the doctrine of celestial marriage,

they would form an eternal family (singular).

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Stone holm]

I assumed he was talking about structural doctrine, since eternal marriage is a structural doctrine meaning it is more than just a Prophet says do or don't do it, namely it clearly is part of our understanding of how life is organized after theesuurection, it is never going to change. The Church is never going to perform SSM's end of discussion.

However, any notion that the Church is going to continue its campaign to prevent non members from getting the right to obtain SSM is probably a whole different matter. Right now the non Mormon media take on his and Elder Nelson's talks is that the Church is testing the water to see if it is safe to dive back into the political war. I don't think that was the case, unfortunately some do and now there is a push among some members to divert their tithing to support LGBT support groups...sigh...kind of wish they would have just let the subject drop as everyone knows already that we don't support gay marriage and blowing the trumpet is not going to deter anyone from entering into a SSM if they want one bad enough. All this is going to do is deter some straight people from joining the Church .

[BCSpace]

Can anyone help me understand how I am supposed to interpret Elder Oaks' implication that our policies and doctrines have not and do not change?

 

What doctrines do you think have changed? The big ones that people think have changed have not.  Plural marriage and the Priesthood ban are extant doctrines that haven't changed at all.  It was always understood in those doctrines that there would be periods in which there wouldn't be authorized plural marriage and a time when blacks could hold the priesthood and here we are.  Likewise, the doctrine on homosexuality has not changed either.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

What doctrines do you think have changed? The big ones that people think have changed have not.  Plural marriage and the Priesthood ban are extant doctrines that haven't changed at all.  It was always understood in those doctrines that there would be periods in which there wouldn't be authorized plural marriage and a time when blacks could hold the priesthood and here we are.  Likewise, the doctrine on homosexuality has not changed either.

 

There have been many doctrinal changes, but they are all explained away as being "just someone's opinion", "continuing revelation", "not essential for salvation" or some similar term. 

I could list changes, but everyone of them has an official explanation and would thus be a waste of time.  But there have been many changes since the days of Joseph Smith to doctrine, ordinances, policies, procedures, and church teachings.

[rockpond]

President Kimball's statements on interracial marriage never even rose to the level of JoD quotes about polygamy. They are more on a par with his opinions against face cards.

 

I find that people who bring up that "BY taught plural marriage was the only way to the highest level of exaltation" are personally not first-hand familiar with Journal of Discourses. They quote quotes they have read from others, but they are not familiar with the scope and breadth of what was taught in JoD from 1851 to 1886. Despite well-known statements declaring polygamy to be an eternal, essential requirement for exaltation, there are other, less well-known statements, equally emphatic, that it could be ended. This includes Brigham Young. Not only in JoD, but also in CHC. Brigham Young actually held talks with President Grant and Vice President Colfax on what they thought surrendering polygamy would look like. These didn’t go anywhere, but the Brethren were thinking about it and at least envisioning what abandoning the practice would/could look like in the 1860s, without feeling like it was such an eternal unabandonable principle that ending the practice was inconceivable.

 

Several less well-known JD statements put total Church participation in polygamy at around 10%. This means that overwhelmingly, most members did not participate in it, despite emphatic statements that it is essential for exaltation. How do we explain that?

 

Quite obviously, at that time, for those who were specifically commanded to (by priesthood leaders, personally) and able to practice it, it was a binding commandment essential to *their* exaltation. But, members of the Church did not regard this as a rigid, hard-and-fast rule for everyone, worlds without end, or these vast numbers of members wouldn’t remain with the Church over time and generations. And, it wasn't perceived as being a blanket requirement for all people, essentially damning 90% of the Church at that time. Try retaining people with that kind of optimism and outlook!

 

I look at it how evangelicals cherry-pick Moroni 10 or 2 Nephi 25 to claim that we believe that Christ can only save us after all we can do (and we never do all we can do, so it's all hopeless under Mormonism). This isn't how anyone interprets or understands these scriptures, and people in JoD times didn't interpret or understand statements about the importance of polygamy how many people today think they did.

 

Regarding interracial marriages in the temple, they were prohibited.  Now they are not.  That's a change.  So what exactly did Elder Oaks mean?

 

Regarding BY, yes... I agree... he was inconsistent.  Sometimes he taught the necessity of polygamy for the highest level of exaltation.  Other times, he did not.  I guess that doesn't qualify as change.

[BCSpace]

I could list changes, but everyone of them has an official explanation and would thus be a waste of time.  But there have been many changes since the days of Joseph Smith to doctrine, ordinances, policies, procedures, and church teachings.

 

There certainly have been changes, and to some, they apparently represent a change in doctrine.  But I think no doctrines have changed and I don't explain away or deny any doctrine published by the Church.

 

Consider plural marriage; simple example.  Jacob 2:30 was extant before the early LDS practice.  It is extant now. 

 

The Church does not apologize for previous practice of plural marriage.  The Church does not "unseal" any of those previous plural sealings.  An LDS man today may even be sealed to multiple women.  Nothing has changed.  The doctrine was already that the Lord authorizes it's practice from time to time and that is what is happening now.  It is not authorized in mortality.  No doctrinal change whatsoever.

 

A similar explanation works for the Priesthood ban.  There has been no change in that doctrine either.  Check out:

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=eng

 

Notice how the modern priesthood ban is explained in terms of an ancient ban.  No doctrinal change.

 

The doctrine on homosexuality hasn't changed either.  It has never been a sin to be tempted.  We have always been taught to hate the sin and love the sinner.  A practicing homosexual cannot partake of the highest ordinances and blessings of the Church and may even have some or all removed depending on the circumstance.  No doctrinal change.

Edited October 8, 2013 by BCSpace

[rockpond]

I assumed he was talking about structural doctrine, since eternal marriage is a structural doctrine meaning it is more than just a Prophet says do or don't do it, namely it clearly is part of our understanding of how life is organized after theesuurection, it is never going to change. The Church is never going to perform SSM's end of discussion.

 

Isn't everything we have something that a prophet or apostle told us?  I'm not seeing your distinction with "structural doctrine".

 

And what of policies that he mentioned alongside doctrines?  Are there "structural policies"?  How are those defined?

 

No need to kick of another gay marriage debate in this thread.  I understand and have already added it to my list of things that the church is/was never going to do.  So, I'm on board.

[JLHPROF]

There certainly have been changes, and to some, they apparently represent a change in doctrine.  But I think no doctrines have changed and I don't explain away or deny any doctrine published by the Church.

Consider plural marriage; simple example.  Jacob 2:30 was extant before the early LDS practice.  It is extant now. 

 

The Church does not apologize for previous practice of plural marriage.  The Church does not "unseal" any of those previous plural sealings.  An LDS man today may even be sealed to multiple women.  Nothing has changed.  The doctrine was already that the Lord authorizes it's practice from time to time and that is what is happening now.  It is not authorized in mortality.  No doctrinal change whatsoever.

 I said in the other thread which doctrines have changed concerning plural marriage. GA's taught in conference and meetings from 1852-1890 that  plural marriage: 1. was necessary for exaltation 2. would never be taken from the earth 3. was how Jesus and God live  4. is synonymous with celestial marriage, etc, etc.

You say you don't explain away any published church doctrine, but someone will undoubtedly say that these were either speculation, opinion, limited light and knowledge, and so forth.  But what they actually show is a change in doctrine.

[rockpond]

What doctrines do you think have changed? The big ones that people think have changed have not.  Plural marriage and the Priesthood ban are extant doctrines that haven't changed at all.  It was always understood in those doctrines that there would be periods in which there wouldn't be authorized plural marriage and a time when blacks could hold the priesthood and here we are.  Likewise, the doctrine on homosexuality has not changed either.

 

A lot of that depends on how you define doctrine.  If we define doctrine as official teachings than many of our doctrines have changed over the years.  And we'd expect them to, right?  Isn't that why we have living prophets?

 

But Elder Oaks also included policies.  Of course our policies have changed.  So is there an explanation that makes sense for his remarks or was it just an error.

[rockpond]

There certainly have been changes, and to some, they apparently represent a change in doctrine.  But I think no doctrines have changed and I don't explain away or deny any doctrine published by the Church.

 

Consider plural marriage; simple example.  Jacob 2:30 was extant before the early LDS practice.  It is extant now. 

 

The Church does not apologize for previous practice of plural marriage.  The Church does not "unseal" any of those previous plural sealings.  An LDS man today may even be sealed to multiple women.  Nothing has changed.  The doctrine was already that the Lord authorizes it's practice from time to time and that is what is happening now.  It is not authorized in mortality.  No doctrinal change whatsoever.

 

A similar explanation works for the Priesthood ban.  There has been no change in that doctrine either.  Check out:

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=eng

 

Notice how the modern priesthood ban is explained in terms of an ancient ban.  No doctrinal change.

 

The doctrine on homosexuality hasn't changed either.  It has never been a sin to be tempted.  We have always been taught to hate the sin and love the sinner.  A practicing homosexual cannot partake of the highest ordinances and blessings of the Church and may even have some or all removed depending on the circumstance.  No doctrinal change.

 

The origin of the priesthood & temple ban against those of African descent has not been provided.  We don't know why it was implemented in this dispensation.  But we do know revelation removed it.  You may not consider that a change in doctrine, but it is certainly a change in policy.

Edited October 8, 2013 by rockpond

[BCSpace]

The origin of the priesthood & temple ban against those of African descent has not been provided.  We don't know why it was implemented in this dispensation.  But we do know revelation removed it.  You may not consider that a change in doctrine, but it is certainly a change in policy

 

If the doctrine was and has been that they would someday get the priesthood, then it's not even a change in policy, much less doctrine.  It's merely acting on existing policy; that the Lord would have to designate when that time was.

 

 

A lot of that depends on how you define doctrine.  If we define doctrine as official teachings than many of our doctrines have changed over the years.  And we'd expect them to, right?  Isn't that why we have living prophets?

 

But Elder Oaks also included policies.  Of course our policies have changed.  So is there an explanation that makes sense for his remarks or was it just an error.

 

 

I define doctrine how the Church defines it, that which they officially publish.

[rockpond]

If the doctrine was and has been that they would someday get the priesthood, then it's not even a change in policy, much less doctrine.  It's merely acting on existing policy; that the Lord would have to designate when that time was.

 

 

I define doctrine how the Church defines it, that which they officially publish.

 

So if it was a doctrine that blacks would someday get the priesthood and be allowed to enter the temple then it couldn't be contradicted by a prophet, right?

 

Further, when was the doctrine established and by what authority?

 

If we are going to define doctrine as what the church officially publishes, then we are defining it as something that changes since we are continually changing what is and is not published by the church.

[BCSpace]

So if it was a doctrine that blacks would someday get the priesthood and be allowed to enter the temple then it couldn't be contradicted by a prophet, right?

 

I've never said doctrine can't change and hasn't change, just that certain ones haven't.

 

Further, when was the doctrine established and by what authority?

 

Off the top of my head:

 

The 1949 FP statement:

"It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord" [which implies earlier than 1949]

 

"but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time"

 

The 1969 FP statement:

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

 

If we are going to define doctrine as what the church officially publishes, then we are defining it as something that changes since we are continually changing what is and is not published by the church.

 

Examples?

[Stargazer]

I suddenly realized that my comment here would lead to derailing the thread, so I am deleted it.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Stargazer

[JLHPROF]

Well, I take BY's teaching about that to mean that accepting the principle of eternal marriage including the plurality of wives is the only way to the highest level of exaltation, and when called to practice plural marriage, it is necessary to actually practice it.  If not, then not.  This means that we here in this day are off the hook, as far as plural marriage is concerned.

 

Well that's my story and I am sticking to it.

Pretty brave to gamble your exaltation on interpretation -

[BCSpace]

Well, I take BY's teaching about that to mean that accepting the principle of eternal marriage including the plurality of wives is the only way to the highest level of exaltation, and when called to practice plural marriage, it is necessary to actually practice it.

 

Sounds like the doctrine today.  Someone who is valiant in the testimony of Jesus, a requirement for the CK, will accept the doctrines of the Church and everything the Church has done with the Lord's authorization.  Hence today, one must accept the plural marriage doctrine in order to be considered valiant and on the path to the CK.

[Robert F. Smith]

We are exclusive in that we claim modern revelation from God. IE; So while I believe that our block of three hours for Church meetings is just a policy subject to change. That change would come through revelation.

I don't see why that would require revelation.  Church meeting schedules have been changed several times and no revelation has been announced in conjunction with them.  We might say that policy changes occur due to inspiration, but even that is not clear.

 

When President David O. McKay wanted to ordain Black people and open an African mission, he could find no doctrinal reason why not.  However Joseph Fielding Smith insisted that a revelation was required, so that the change did not come until a Prophet received a revelation on the matter.