What Will Happen To The Church If It Fails To Adapt?

[Mystery Meat]

What will become of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in western culture if it does not adapt its doctrines and stances? What if it continues to count homosexuality (or sexual interactions between people of the same gender) as sin? What if it does not ever allow women to hold the priesthood? What if it never provides the answers to satisfy its honest doubters on tough historical issues?

[Hamba Tuhan]

'And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him? ... Jesus answered them, ... But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me'.

[BCSpace]

In adapting it's doctrines in the past, the Church has not had to give them up.  For example, plural marriage and the priesthood ban remain official doctrines. What typically happens is the Church presents a different face of the same doctrine and you've seen that over the last severals years in the case of homosexuality and SSM.  Neither of those doctrines have changed at all despite opposition claims to the contrary.

 

So I think historically, one has multiple examples of how doctrines will be 'adapted' and it doesn't bode well for those hoping for actual doctrinal changes.

[Storm Rider]

I think the greater question is what will happen if it DOES adapt.  I think there is an argument that the RLDS/CofC's membership contraction of over 60% can be argued to be directly related to its "adapting" to new social demands.  It failed in our most basic belief - that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and his Church is led by revelation; when the shepherd leads we follow.  When he is not going in a direction we don't go there.

 

If it does not adapt then it will remain his Church and those who seek to follow Christ fully will enter the kingdom.  Those other churches that hold to the teachings of scripture will join us in being persecuted.  Those that do adapt will become void of the spirit of revelation and will become as the plants that are found among the rocks. 

[Rivers]

The Catholic church hasn't been adapting on these issues and they seem to be doing ok. Or are they?

Edited October 1, 2014 by Rivers

[Scott Lloyd]

What will become of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in western culture if it does not adapt its doctrines and stances? What if it continues to count homosexuality (or sexual interactions between people of the same gender) as sin? What if it does not ever allow women to hold the priesthood? What if it never provides the answers to satisfy its honest doubters on tough historical issues?

Time was when sex outside of marriage was widely regarded as immoral. That began to change about 50 years ago, when I was still in my childhood. Today, the Church of Jesus Christ still teaches that it is immoral. The Church continues to prosper and succeed in its mission without "adapting" to societal attitudes on this matter, though certain of the members let themselves be influenced to a disturbing degree by said societal attitudes.*

I think it will continue to be thus until the millennial day.

The vision beheld by Nephi will continue to be fulfilled in that the church of the Lamb of God will maintain a global presence, though its numbers will be relatively few by reason of the influence of Satan and those who sustain him (the prophesied "church of the devil." )The church of the Lamb includes not just faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but any who in effect abide by its teachings though they might not yet be acquainted with or fully understand the Church as an organization, even as it sadly must exclude those who have nominal membership in the Church but who refuse to abide by its teachings or honor the covenants they have made.

*The redefinition of marriage is really just a continuation of this trend since, in the divine view, there can be no true marriage other than between a man and a woman.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[janderich]

Yes in general the church will continue to grow. There may be some dissensions and a portion may leave, but church will continue to reach into all the world and receive those who will hear. However, the gap between the righteous and the wicked will also continue to grow. Anger against those that will not conform will increase until the wicked will seek to cast the righteous out. Then it will be as Samuel prophesied, "But behold, it is for the righteous' sake that it is spared. But behold, the time cometh, saith the Lord, that when ye shall cast out the righteous from among you, then shall ye be ripe for destruction" (Hel 13:14).

[JLHPROF]

What will happen if the Church fails to adapt? The exact same thing that would happen if it adapts (as it has done in the past).

Life will go on. The Church will continue to follow the best path it can until any errors are set in order for the return of Christ and the start of the Millennium.

The end is unavoidable, only the twists and turns of the path and the amount of things to be set in order at the end will change.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The Catholoc church hasn't been adapting on these issues and they seem to be doing ok.  Or are they?

The "church" may not be adapting, but its membership is. 

The Univision poll found that 54 percent of U.S. Catholics supported same-sex marriage. Fifty-nine percent supported admitting women to the priesthood. Sixty percent thought Catholics who had divorced and remarried outside the church should be eligible to receive communion. Sixty-one percent thought priests should be allowed to marry. Seventy-six percent thought abortion should be permitted at least in some circumstances. Seventy-nine percent supported contraception.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/11/catholic_poll_on_abortion_gay_marriage_and_birth_control_europe_and_the.html

[Nofear]

For some reason we, either consciously or unconsciously look to increasing membership numbers as necessary condition for truthfulness. It *is* true that everybody will need to have a fair chance at hearing and understanding the Gospel, but not necessarily that they'll convert. It remains well possible that at some time in the future membership will decline. As it is, the percentage of Mormons as a percentage of world population is decreasing I believe (somebody verify?).

[Robert F. Smith]

I think the greater question is what will happen if it DOES adapt.  I think there is an argument that the RLDS/CofC's membership contraction of over 60% can be argued to be directly related to its "adapting" to new social demands.  It failed in our most basic belief - that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and his Church is led by revelation; when the shepherd leads we follow.

Yet, the RLDS Church President has rec'd many revelations in past decades and they are published in their D&C.  There has been vigorous adaptation by the RLDS Church to modern demands, as you say.  So, one has to ask after the source of those revelations, and ask which shepherd was actually being followed.

 

If it does not adapt then it will remain his Church and those who seek to follow Christ fully will enter the kingdom.  Those other churches that hold to the teachings of scripture will join us in being persecuted.  Those that do adapt will become void of the spirit of revelation and will become as the plants that are found among the rocks.

Yet the LDS Church has been extremely dynamic and adaptive.  Indeed, it has been criticized by some for being too accommodating, in giving up the United Order, Plural Marriage, etc., and becoming (at least in America) the most thoroughly "American" Church, a people who are more "Republican" than the Republican Party, and even a caricature of 1950s quietude and good behavior, desperately seeking acceptance as "Christians," when in fact basic Mormon doctrine is quite alien to normative Judeo-Christian dogma.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[CV75]

What will become of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in western culture if it does not adapt its doctrines and stances? What if it continues to count homosexuality (or sexual interactions between people of the same gender) as sin? What if it does not ever allow women to hold the priesthood? What if it never provides the answers to satisfy its honest doubters on tough historical issues?

In its own way, the Church does continue to “adapt”, not by accommodating the worst the world has to offer, but by leveraging all the good the world has at its disposal for bringing people to Christ. I’m thinking in terms of advancements in communications science and technology as a prime example, but there are many other means as well (Alma 37:7). The Lord also uses adaptation as a means for blessing the saints (D&C 89:3).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Yet the LDS Church has been extremely dynamic and adaptive.  Indeed, it has been criticized by some for being too accommodating, in giving up the United Order, Plural Marriage, etc.

You do make some interesting points here. They are somethings I have considered in past thought, specifically plural marriage.

[Scott Lloyd]

For some reason we, either consciously or unconsciously look to increasing membership numbers as necessary condition for truthfulness. It *is* true that everybody will need to have a fair chance at hearing and understanding the Gospel, but not necessarily that they'll convert. It remains well possible that at some time in the future membership will decline. As it is, the percentage of Mormons as a percentage of world population is decreasing I believe (somebody verify?).

A few decades ago, there was something of a sensation among some of our members when sociologist Rodney Stark predicted that Mormonism would become the next great world religion.

 

Since then, Analytics, an occasional poster on this and other Mormon-related boards, has taken delight in debunking Stark's projections.

 

What both Analytics and the sensation seekers fail to realize is that numerical dominance is necessary neither for the fulfillment of prophecy nor for the validation of truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

My personal belief is that the prophecy in Daniel's interpretation of king Nebuchadnezzer's dream about the stone cut out of the mountain without hands and filling the whole earth will not have its fulfillment until after the beginning of the Millennium.

[juliann]

What will become of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in western culture if it does not adapt its doctrines and stances? What if it continues to count homosexuality (or sexual interactions between people of the same gender) as sin? What if it does not ever allow women to hold the priesthood? What if it never provides the answers to satisfy its honest doubters on tough historical issues?

I don't think anyone ever saw the possibility of gay marriage. As a result, I think it is our rhetoric more than our doctrine that has gotten us into trouble. By emphasizing the sin part rather than the against God's plan or natural order part, we are now stuck with some inflammatory rhetoric. There is just nothing to be gained by calling an entire class of people sinners and a whole lot to lose. And since we made being lawfully and legally wedded as the measure of who can have sex rather than the man and woman part...it seems like that will necessitate another round of rhetoric.

 

I don't think we can afford to continue morphing "gay marriage" with churchy stuff. When it is legal, the debate is over...people are going to see it as a mere fact of life separate from religious beliefs. Thus, this test of do you accept gay marriage is a trick question. We will all have to "accept" gay marriage when it is legal. I guess the question really is do you approve of it and that just seems like a really grumpy way to live when it has become a moot question.We need a much better way to talk about it all.

 

I am not one of those binary folk who thinks "the world" is evil. I don't think we are in a steady decline. There are peaks and valleys and regardless of awful we like to paint our world, only the privileged would really want to live in another time. I think it is absurd that we construct "the good old days"  when so much of the population was disenfranchised.

 

There will be unintended consequences to changing the definition of marriage and that would happen regardless of which group changed it. The church's mistake was personalizing it as a gay marriage problem. As ridiculed as the slippery slope position is, we are now on one. One of the stupidest talking points I heard during Prop 8 is that "oh, that will never happen, how dare you!" only to see it happen even within the same year. It wasn't about "gay marriage" it was about "and you really couldn't see that coming?" I haven't seen those kinds of gay marriage defenses anymore. And I'd like to see a whole lot less of the knee jerk inflammatory defenses from the other side as well.

[JLHPROF]

You do make some interesting points here. They are somethings I have considered in past thought, specifically plural marriage.

 

The list of "adaptations" the Church has already made is quite long.  And while I'm sure all were done prayerfully I am also sure that only some came by revelation.

 

As I said, it is irrelevant if the Church adapts or not.  Either way the same destination will be reached at the start of the millennium.  Any incorrect adaptations that have crept in will be set in order, and the Church will come off triumphant.

[Guest]

What will become of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in western culture if it does not adapt its doctrines and stances? What if it continues to count homosexuality (or sexual interactions between people of the same gender) as sin? What if it does not ever allow women to hold the priesthood? What if it never provides the answers to satisfy its honest doubters on tough historical issues?

A better question would be;

What is going to happen to the Church if they take upon themselves to move ahead with any doctrine without getting the permission of God?

[Mystery Meat]

I don't think anyone ever saw the possibility of gay marriage. As a result, I think it is our rhetoric more than our doctrine that has gotten us into trouble. By emphasizing the sin part rather than the against God's plan or natural order part, we are now stuck with some inflammatory rhetoric. There is just nothing to be gained by calling an entire class of people sinners and a whole lot to lose. And since we made being lawfully and legally wedded as the measure of who can have sex rather than the man and woman part...it seems like that will necessitate another round of rhetoric.

 

I don't think we can afford to continue morphing "gay marriage" with churchy stuff. When it is legal, the debate is over...people are going to see it as a mere fact of life separate from religious beliefs. Thus, this test of do you accept gay marriage is a trick question. We will all have to "accept" gay marriage when it is legal. I guess the question really is do you approve of it and that just seems like a really grumpy way to live when it has become a moot question.We need a much better way to talk about it all.

 

I am not one of those binary folk who thinks "the world" is evil. I don't think we are in a steady decline. There are peaks and valleys and regardless of awful we like to paint our world, only the privileged would really want to live in another time. I think it is absurd that we construct "the good old days"  when so much of the population was disenfranchised.

 

There will be unintended consequences to changing the definition of marriage and that would happen regardless of which group changed it. The church's mistake was personalizing it as a gay marriage problem. As ridiculed as the slippery slope position is, we are now on one. One of the stupidest talking points I heard during Prop 8 is that "oh, that will never happen, how dare you!" only to see it happen even within the same year. It wasn't about "gay marriage" it was about "and you really couldn't see that coming?" I haven't seen those kinds of gay marriage defenses anymore. And I'd like to see a whole lot less of the knee jerk inflammatory defenses from the other side as well.

 

I don't disagree with any of this, however, I think if we are saying God doesn't approve of SSM or the Church doesn't, opposed to calling it a sin, we are really just playing with words (words are important, however). I also have no problem calling a whole group of people sinners. You, me, and everyone fall into that category for one reason or another. I sin everyday. Having sexual intercourse with a person of the same gender is a sin. Prophets, apostles, and other key holders are to call the sinner to repentance. I have no problem with that even if they do so with boldness at times. Calling a person to repentance is never politically correct and as the good book says, "the wicked taketh the truth to be hard." 

 

Thank God for the Atonement, which is made available to all sinners no matter their sin of choice.

[cinepro]

What will become of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in western culture if it does not adapt its doctrines and stances? What if it continues to count homosexuality (or sexual interactions between people of the same gender) as sin? What if it does not ever allow women to hold the priesthood? What if it never provides the answers to satisfy its honest doubters on tough historical issues?

 

As others have pointed out, I think the Church has done a pretty good job of "adapting" in general. 

 

And although they get a lot of chatter currently, I don't know if I'd pick those specific issues as long-term pressure points. 

[rockpond]

What will become of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in western culture if it does not adapt its doctrines and stances? What if it continues to count homosexuality (or sexual interactions between people of the same gender) as sin? What if it does not ever allow women to hold the priesthood? What if it never provides the answers to satisfy its honest doubters on tough historical issues?

 

I don't think that the church ever "adapts".  Or maybe I just think that isn't the right word.  I guess I don't look at past changes (polygamy, priesthood restrictions) as adaptations.  If adapting to culture is our goal then we are really lousy at it.  

 

We're a church that believes in revelation and restoration.  I believe both will continue.  In some cases it will likely be seen as "adapting".

[JLHPROF]

I don't think that the church ever "adapts".  Or maybe I just think that isn't the right word.  I guess I don't look at past changes (polygamy, priesthood restrictions) as adaptations.  If adapting to culture is our goal then we are really lousy at it.  

 

We're a church that believes in revelation and restoration.  I believe both will continue.  In some cases it will likely be seen as "adapting".

 

Oh, they adapt to culture, society, and the demands of members.  There are many examples.  Here's just one of many:

 

EXAMPLE

MEMBERS COMPLAIN ABOUT SOCIETAL TREND

 

“Encasing the lower limbs the old-style garment reaches to the ankles and is looked upon by young members as baggy, uncomfortable and ungainly.  The young of the gentler sex complained that to wear the old style with the new and finer hosiery gave the limbs a knotty appearance.  It was embarrassing in view of the generally accepted sanitary shorter skirt.”  Mysteries of Godliness, pg 152-153

 

MEMBERS DO WHAT THEY WANT REGARDLESS

 

The Lord has given unto us garments of the holy priesthood, and you know what that means. And yet there are those of us who mutilate them, in order that we may follow the foolish, vain and indecent practices of the world."

"In order that such people may imitate the fashions, they will not hesitate to mutilate that which should be held by them the most sacred of all things in the world, next to their own virtue, next to their own purity of life. They should hold these things that God has given unto them sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them. Improvement Era 9, August 1906, 812-815.

 

AND CHURCH RESPONSE AND ADAPTATION

 

.somewhat reluctantly and with deference only because we have convinced ourselves that it will… obviate undesirable exposure of the garment which now so frequently occurs through the wearing of present-day patterns of clothing.  We feel sure that such a modification will greatly please many good women throughout the Church, and we have not been able to see that we are yielding any vital thing in this slight change” Mysteries of Godliness, pg 152-153

 

Basically, the young people didn't like the old garments, complained to the Church, wore them incorrectly (exposed) or mutilated them so the Church reluctantly adapted to the desired fashions of the young people.  Not by revelation, but because they didn't see that anything of value was changed (debatable) and "convinced themselves" that it would be better.

Edited October 1, 2014 by JLHPROF

[juliann]

Young people? It clearly states "good women." Can you not figure out why garments are particularly hard on women? The key point here is that nothing was given up. Do you want us to become a version of the Amish and stay in 19th c. clothing simply to accommodate more cloth?

 

As we become a worldwide church, I expect more modification of garments, especially in exceptionally hot climates.

[JLHPROF]

Young people? It clearly states "good women." Can you not figure out why garments are particularly hard on women? The key point here is that nothing was given up. Do you want us to become a version of the Amish and stay in 19th c. clothing simply to accommodate more cloth?

 

As we become a worldwide church, I expect more modification of garments, especially in exceptionally hot climates.

 

Actually if you read the whole post the first quote clearly states "young members" found the garments unfashionable.

 

As for the key point - the key point here is actually the point of the thread - that the Church DOES adapt with society at times.  In this case, they adapted for fashion and comfort.  Either way, an adaptation was made (one that Joseph F. Smith apparently would have completely disagreed with).

 

And you are probably correct that many more adaptations will be made by the Church.

[CA Steve]

It's threads like this and statements to the effect that that a poster thinks he/she knows what is fundamental to the church, that make me wonder if what is really being said is "If the following things change, I am outta here".

Beyond faith in God the Father, the divinity and sacrifice of Jesus, Joseph Smith prophetic role and an unbroken line of authority from him to President Monson, I think pretty much anything else is subject to revision by modern day revelation.

 

So threads like this make me think that the question isn't about survivability of the Church, but where certain people draw the line at what they think defines the Church. A risky stance to take as we can see from the example of someone Like BR McConkie.

Edited October 1, 2014 by CA Steve

[JLHPROF]

It's threads like this and statements to the effect that that a poster thinks he/she knows what is fundamental to the church, that make me wonder if what is really being said is "If the following things change, I am outta here".

Beyond faith in God the Father, the divinity and sacrifice of Jesus, Joseph Smith prophetic role and an unbroken line of authority from him to President Monson, I think pretty much anything else is subject to revision by modern day revelation.

 

So threads like this make me think that the question isn't about survivability of the Church, but where certain people draw the line at what they think defines the Church. A risky stance to take as we can see from the example of someone Like BR McConkie.

 

Ecclesiastes 3:14 - "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him."