Elder Christofferson To Church News: Doctrine Is Not Changing

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting one-on-one interview with Elder D. Todd Christofferson in the Church News coming out tomorrow in the wake of last week's news conference on religious liberty and gay rights.

 

I'm quite proud of the work of my colleague, Sarah Jane Weaver, on this article.

 

Included is the clearest, most unequivocal statement I've seen yet from Elder Christofferson (and that's saying a lot) on the matter of whether the law of chastity will one day change to permit homosexual behavior and same-sex "marriage."

 

“Some even suppose that those standards will someday change. That is simply not true,” he said. “The law of chastity has applied since the very beginning, when the Lord commanded a man to leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and to none else. Our doctrine, not just belief but doctrine, that sexual relations are only appropriate and lawful in the Lord’s eyes between man and woman legally and lawfully married is unchanged and will never change.”

 

 

This should lay to rest the fanciful notion I've seen hinted at that Elder Christofferson is somehow at odds with his Brethren in the high leadership of the Church on this matter.

 

There are other interesting points in the article (which is rather lengthy, as Church News pieces go), but I wanted to highlight this one.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Bobbieaware]

Interesting one-on-one interview with Elder D. Todd Christofferson in the Church News coming out tomorrow in the wake of last week's news conference on religious liberty and gay rights.

 

I'm quite proud of the work of my colleague, Sarah Jane Weaver, on this article.

 

Included is the clearest, most unequivocal statement I've seen yet from Elder Christofferson (and that's saying a lot) on the matter of whether the law of chastity will one day change to permit homosexual behavior and same-sex "marriage."

 

 

This should lay to rest the fanciful notion I've seen hinted at that Elder Christofferson is somehow at odds with his Brethren in the high leadership of the Church on this matter.

 

There are other interesting points in the article (which is rather lengthy, as Church News pieces go), but I wanted to highlight this one.

Thanks for posting this. It's comforting when rumors and innuendo can be put to rest.

[Avatar4321]

And yet this clearly statement will be ignored and people will try to claim otherwise

[jwhitlock]

We had a rather negative newspaper article in our local paper that referenced the church's news conference.  It quoted a couple of LGBT activist groups who had problems with what the church had said, without any balancing viewpoints from our side. That's kind of what I expect from our paper, which typically runs articles critical of "the Mormon church", as they call it.  However, the comments from the LGBT groups did give an indication of how their attacks on religious freedom are going to be made. From their viewpoint, demands for anti-discrimination should always overrule religious freedom. All they have to do is characterize something as discriminatory and "causing harm" to LGBT people, and the religious group or people with religious convictions that "discriminate" will be punished.

 

And it is clear that they have very, very broad conceptions of what "discrimination" covers.

[carbon dioxide]

And yet this clearly statement will be ignored and people will try to claim otherwise

If Jesus was to come down himself and declare on Fox and CNN these words there still would be people who would doubt and think that it can change. 

[DBMormon]

Our doctrine, not just belief but doctrine will never change.

 

Forget the LGBT issue for a moment.  Consider the ramifications of what was said.  Our Doctrine as we have heard, understood, and interpreted from the Lord is unchanging and will never change"   If we eliminate the LGBT part of his quote do we hold this statement to be true?

 

Is it true generally or just around this specific issue?

 

Has our Doctrine ever changed before?

 

What is Doctrine?  (no working definition will reconciles this contradiction inherently found between the word and how we use it and how our history has worked out) How we Mormons define DOCTRINE is a half dozen paradoxes all banging heads.

 

If the previous things we held to be Doctrine at any given time have indeed changed, than how can we be so sure that a present Doctrine won't change?

 

Has the Lord himself appeared to assure those who lead this is unchangeable?

 

If not then can we ever be sure there is not further light and knowledge on any given topic.

 

Just asking questions that seem to me to be too messy to have any level of certainty what is Doctrine and what is not and what can change and what can't.

 

I found this article to match my own views nearly 100%

Edited February 7, 2015 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Quotes from the article above that I really liked

 

I've recently been reading "This Is My Doctrine": The Development of Mormon Theology. Perhaps because of this I'm extra sensitive to hearing people say that "doctrine never changes" or "will never change", because in reality practically all of our doctrines (even the nature of God) have evolved and changed over time, even since the beginning of the Restoration. Because I assume you're also aware of this, I'll grant that you may be using a different definition of "doctrine," which is not uncommon in my experience. But I think we both agree that the Lord's standards don't change. The only thing that changes is our understanding of His will, His standards, His doctrine.

 

I believe Saints who trust Salt Lake to give them all the right answers or God's direction for their individual lives are putting their trust in the wrong source. I certainly don't give those leading the church that much control or power over my life. As I've written before, "I now recognize that I am in the drivers seat of my own search for the divine--not the Church™. I can be myself and embrace all the truths I find in the world, right where I am--while Mormon. If the culture were to ever make me feel like I couldn't do this, or embrace what apostle and former member of the First Presidency Hugh B Brown called "An Eternal Quest--Freedom of the Mind", or tolerate me as a free thinker, than I would no longer find that culture worth belonging to."

 

Today, in this new Civil Rights era for the LGBT community, I'm afraid that my conscience and the position of officials currently leading the church might also be at odds. So I'm in a bit of a precarious position. I wait patiently, though not passively, and encourage progress in areas that I can, while trying to be anxiously engaged in good causes and follow my conscience without causing harm to the church. Sometimes I wonder, though, how long I can continue in good faith and enough patience before feeling embarrassed about my church's current position, similarly to those who felt embarrassed by the church's pre-1978 position. Granted, these are two separate issues entirely, but there are also many similarities. Saying that something will "never change" is a theory that may or may not prove to be correct.

 

[cinepro]

Honestly, having a current Apostle tell us that current policies are "unchanging" isn't very convincing.  It would be more convincing if an Apostle from 2250 time traveled to our day and said "Hey, even in 2250 the Church still won't allow SSM."

 

Because if the Church ever does need to change on this issue, it won't be because the Law of Chastity changed.  It will be because the Law of Chastity always allowed it, but "the Church members weren't ready for it" and "we are now seeing with new light" and "not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine."

[Coreyb]

I just have to disagree with elder christoffferson. Especially considering that the standard for marriages needing to be "legal" in order to be chaste is new (relatively speaking), and saying that it is unchanged shows complete disregard for the history of our church.

[mnn727]

Forget the LGBT issue for a moment.  Consider the ramifications of what was said.  Our Doctrine as we have heard, understood, and interpreted from the Lord is unchanging and will never change"   If we eliminate the LGBT part of his quote do we hold this statement to be true?

 

Is it true generally or just around this specific issue?

 

Has our Doctrine ever changed before?

 

What is Doctrine?  (no working definition will reconciles this contradiction inherently found between the word and how we use it and how our history has worked out) How we Mormons define DOCTRINE is a half dozen paradoxes all banging heads.

 

If the previous things we held to be Doctrine at any given time have indeed changed, than how can we be so sure that a present Doctrine won't change?

 

Has the Lord himself appeared to assure those who lead this is unchangeable?

 

If not then can we ever be sure there is not further light and knowledge on any given topic.

 

Just asking questions that seem to me to be too messy to have any level of certainty what is Doctrine and what is not and what can change and what can't.

 

I found this article to match my own views nearly 100%

Perhaps you could give us a couple examples f doctrine that you think has changed.

[rodheadlee]

How many ways do you want them to say it? What form of legalese will be accepted by the masses who can't seem to get it through their heads that it will always be only a man and a woman and not man and man or woman and woman that is an acceptable relationship for marriage in His eyes?

[jwhitlock]

Forget the LGBT issue for a moment.  Consider the ramifications of what was said.  Our Doctrine as we have heard, understood, and interpreted from the Lord is unchanging and will never change"   If we eliminate the LGBT part of his quote do we hold this statement to be true?

 

 

Well, I guess that the church's doctrine that there is a God and that Jesus Christ is our Savior through His atonement can never be considered as absolute. In reality, it's just a subjective interpretation of what we understand and we should never be so bold as to proclaim any doctrine as literal and unchanging.

 

The world always knows better, doesn't it.

[Kenngo1969]

But, Elder Christofferson, don't you love your brother?

[carbon dioxide]

Honestly, having a current Apostle tell us that current policies are "unchanging" isn't very convincing.  It would be more convincing if an Apostle from 2250 time traveled to our day and said "Hey, even in 2250 the Church still won't allow SSM."

 

Because if the Church ever does need to change on this issue, it won't be because the Law of Chastity changed.  It will be because the Law of Chastity always allowed it, but "the Church members weren't ready for it" and "we are now seeing with new light" and "not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine."

One could say that for other practices as well.  Perhaps having physical relations with animals or plants is ok.  Perhaps having sex with people you are not married with is ok as long as you get the permission of the spouse.  After all cheating is when you do something behind their back.  Perhaps one can be in an open marriage and still comply with the law of chastity but we are not ready for it.  Perhaps Hugh Hefner has been living the law of chastity all along.  Why should possibly changes to the law of chastity only involve homosexuals.  Perhaps there is something for us heterosexuals that might come down the road too. 

[Kenngo1969]

Interesting one-on-one interview with Elder D. Todd Christofferson in the Church News coming out tomorrow in the wake of last week's news conference on religious liberty and gay rights.

 

I'm quite proud of the work of my colleague, Sarah Jane Weaver, on this article. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

 

That's "Boss," to you, Buddy!  (Isn't it? )

 

Edited February 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[carbon dioxide]

Forget the LGBT issue for a moment.  Consider the ramifications of what was said.  Our Doctrine as we have heard, understood, and interpreted from the Lord is unchanging and will never change"   If we eliminate the LGBT part of his quote do we hold this statement to be true?

 

Is it true generally or just around this specific issue?

I think his words are more centered on the law of chastity.  Our doctrines can be modified by new revelation.  However new revelation builds on previous revelation.  It does not destroy it.  Our doctrine on who God the Father is did evolve through time to a better understanding.  We know that God the Father is a resurrected Man of flesh and bones.  We should not expect a revelation that God the Father is a transsexual being that changes gender when He wants.  That would go against everything we understand the resurrection to be.  We know what the law of Chastity is as explained perfectly in the Temple to Adam and Eve.  There is simply nothing one can do to modify it for LGBT individuals.  If the Law of Chastity was to allow gay relationships, Adam and Eve would have been told right there.  Start things off right and one can't say they were not ready for it. We are talking about Adam,  Michael, or the Ancient of Days.  If Adam was not ready for it, nobody would ever be ready for it.

[jwhitlock]

I find that the church currently is being very careful when they make firm pronouncements such as they did in the news conference.. In the past, especially the 19th century, the lines were more clearly drawn and that influenced the tone of pronouncements coming from both leaders and members. Back then, there was much more of a black and white viewpoint of things, because culturally things were also very black and white. There was a tendency to make such absolutist pronouncements in the heat of the moment that weren't quite correct, and unfortunately, some of those are used by enemies of the church to question the overall truth of the church. I suppose that perfection is expected of members of the church, even though it still wouldn't make them acceptable.

 

What is striking about the church's statement is that when the church clearly is trying to be careful about public statements, this one stands out with the firmness of what is being said. I suspect that careful consideration was given both to the content and tone of the statements made. This wasn't a reactionary statement, but a clear message about where the church stands and where it will stand. Inspiration was involved in it.

 

Of course, if someone doesn't believe that LDS church leaders receive inspiration in such matters, they will feel it necessary to cast all kinds of doubts on the statements themselves, and aspersions on those making the statements. But those of us who believe in the overall inspired nature of our leaders - despite their imperfections - see statements like this as inspired. It is obvious that these were carefully and prayerfully considered before they were made.

[pogi]

How many ways do you want them to say it? What form of legalese will be accepted by the masses who can't seem to get it through their heads that it will always be only a man and a woman and not man and man or woman and woman that is an acceptable relationship for marriage in His eyes?

 

 

I think the problem that some people have with this absolute definition of marriage is that it is not historically recognized by the church.  For the church, it was not historically only "a man and a woman", but a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman, and a woman...  Or, a man and woman, and a woman who is married to another man.  In other words, there are exceptions.  I think people conclude that if other forms of marriage have historically been acceptable, what might be acceptable in the future?  I don't personally share that line of reasoning, but I hear that sentiment from others. 

[ERayR]

And yet this clearly statement will be ignored and people will try to claim otherwise

 

Yep what was he really saying and signaling by this statement?

[pogi]

One thing that needs to pointed out for those who are still holding firmly to being anti-nondiscrimination in relation to public services, Elder Christofferson once again reiterated that they support legislation against nondiscrimination regarding "public services". 

 

“Our sympathies go out to those who may find themselves discriminated against in their employment, housing or public services...  Where anti-discrimination legislation and action is being proposed, he said, Church leaders want to be supportive.."

 

The first report mentioned that they they are supportive of legislation for nondiscrimination in relation to "public accomidations", now he says "public services".  Does that clear it up for any of you?

 

He then says, " “This is what we describe as a fairness for all approach that balances nondiscrimination safeguards with protection for key religious rights, in the hope that when people of goodwill seek for that balance we overcome the cultural divisions that exist in the country.”

 

I don't think he considers refusing public services as a key religious right - nor do I.  That is the "give and take".

[Stone holm]

Honestly, having a current Apostle tell us that current policies are "unchanging" isn't very convincing.  It would be more convincing if an Apostle from 2250 time traveled to our day and said "Hey, even in 2250 the Church still won't allow SSM."

 

Because if the Church ever does need to change on this issue, it won't be because the Law of Chastity changed.  It will be because the Law of Chastity always allowed it, but "the Church members weren't ready for it" and "we are now seeing with new light" and "not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine."

I tend to think that the Church will not ever promote or accept SSM as an eternal relationship, if it does, it will have become something which current Mormons would no longer believe to be the same religion. On the other hand, I suspect that either we will be living in a theocracy by then, or we will have ceased to try and legislate our beliefs. The objections to the news conference I am seeing out here in New England have less to do with our views on SSM and more to do with the "deeply held religious belief" exemption being advocated. The general feeling is that the more we make this a political issue and continue to carp on it, the greater the backlash is going to be.

[ERayR]

 

One thing that needs to pointed out for those who are still holding firmly to being anti-nondiscrimination in relation to public services, Elder Christofferson once again reiterated that they support legislation against nondiscrimination regarding "public services". 

 

“Our sympathies go out to those who may find themselves discriminated against in their employment, housing or public services...  Where anti-discrimination legislation and action is being proposed, he said, Church leaders want to be supportive.."

 

The first report mentioned that they they are supportive of legislation for nondiscrimination in relation to "public accomidations", now he says "public services".  Does that clear it up for any of you?

 

He then says, " “This is what we describe as a fairness for all approach that balances nondiscrimination safeguards with protection for key religious rights, in the hope that when people of goodwill seek fothat balance we overcome the cultural divisions that exist in the country.”

 

I don't think he considers refusing public services as a key religious right - nor do I.  That is the "give and take".

 

 

Does that include services by a private entity or only services provided by public (government) entities?

Edited February 7, 2015 by ERayR

[Scott Lloyd]

That's "Boss," to you, Buddy!  (Isn't it? )

 

Sarah and I have a great working relationship.

[Scott Lloyd]

It has been amusing to watch the quibbling, rationalizing and attempted derailment that has gone on here (and I'm not even finished reading the first page of responses). But one thing is certain: No one can ever again claim or imply both intelligently and honestly that Elder Christofferson has not clearly expressed himself on the matter of the law of chastity never changing.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

Interesting one-on-one interview with Elder D. Todd Christofferson in the Church News coming out tomorrow in the wake of last week's news conference on religious liberty and gay rights.

 

I'm quite proud of the work of my colleague, Sarah Jane Weaver, on this article.

 

Included is the clearest, most unequivocal statement I've seen yet from Elder Christofferson (and that's saying a lot) on the matter of whether the law of chastity will one day change to permit homosexual behavior and same-sex "marriage."

 

 

This should lay to rest the fanciful notion I've seen hinted at that Elder Christofferson is somehow at odds with his Brethren in the high leadership of the Church on this matter.

 

There are other interesting points in the article (which is rather lengthy, as Church News pieces go), but I wanted to highlight this one.

 

 

I am with you on this really. I cannot see how the Church could ever accept homosexual relations in a marriage format given how it teaches about gender being eternal and the idea that families are forever as well as the potential for eternal procreation.

 

It is just not going to happen ever.

 

On the other hand

 

His quote below.....

 

“Some even suppose that those standards will someday change. That is simply not true,” he said. “The law of chastity has applied since the very beginning, when the Lord commanded a man to leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and to none else. Our doctrine, not just belief but doctrine, that sexual relations are only appropriate and lawful in the Lord’s eyes between man and woman legally and lawfully married is unchanged and will never change.”

 

 

...certainly does not address the plural marriage issue the Church has and still seems to leave it open. Interesting that he did not say one man and one woman.

 

Ahhh the joys and problems from Joseph's escapade into polygamy.