Elder Christofferson To Church News: Doctrine Is Not Changing

[DBMormon]

I agree, that it can be confusing at times to know who or what to believe.  Prophets are fallible, we are fallible, and enlightenment is a process. But we cannot conclude that because we get it wrong sometimes, that there is not a right - and that it can be discerned. 

 

Do you believe that prophets do indeed receive revelation - That God speaks to His prophets? Yes. 

Do you believe that prophets are fallible?  Yes.

Do you believe that God contradicts Himself? No.

I am assuming this is how you would answer these questions. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.  

 

Based on these beliefs, If one prophet says that the curse was doctrine, and another prophet says that they were wrong, what can we conclude?  The only conclusion could be that one of them are wrong - not that God changed. 

 

If one prophet says that the doctrines on chastity will "never change" and another prophet later changes it, what can we conclude?  Again, that one of them was wrong - not that God changed.  These conclusion do not infringe upon the above stated beliefs.

 

All this demonstrates is that prophets are fallible.  God is not fallible and his words will endure all cultural changes.  It is up to us to look to His prophets and decide when they are speaking for the Lord.  We will be right sometimes, we will be wrong sometimes.  The key is to search, ponder and pray, and not make hasty conclusion from discussion boards.  We will be held accountable for the light we have been given.  If we do not seek to know, we will be held accountable.  Where we have done our best to know and follow that light in all integrity of spirit, then we will not be held accountable for our imperfect perception.

 

The wrong path would be to conclude that I can pick and choose based on my initial hunch and protest the words of the living prophets without sincere prayer and fasting and sure discernment on the matter, with the justification that "it is messy" and prophets change all the time so I am going to forge my own path without consulting God (not necessarily accusing you of such).  Well, sometimes they are right, so be careful. 

agreed

[mfbukowski]

As I intimated in a prior post, some things are matters of immutable truth and are not merely practices that can be authoritatively changed by some future Church leader off in the unforseeable future.

 

I gave four examples: the declaration that Jesus is the Christ, that He was resurrected for the dead, that He atoned for the sins of mankind and that the priesthood has been restored and in accordance with Doctrine and Covenants 13 is never again to be taken from the earth.

 

I'm saying the divine law of chastity, tied in as it is to the doctrine of the eternal nature of the family unit with a marital covenant between a man and a woman, is among these immutable truths. It won't do to say that a prophet or apostle who affirms the law of chastity is only expressing his opinion and one need only wait until he and others like him die off thus clearing the way for change.

 

You may dispute this if you wish. But if you do, please own up to the fact that you are contradicting the recent unequivocal declaration of a current apostle as quoted in this thread.

I agree completely for the record, lest I be misunderstood.

 

These truths describe the river itself in my earlier analogy, and not the swirling eddies.  Chastity is a survival necessity for our culture to continue, because babies require loving parents who are committed to each other to even survive.  We have so many examples of orphans in war zones etc who receive care sufficient for physical survival, yet they waste away without love.

 

The way we express these truths change constantly as languages and cultures change, but the truth of the commandments like chastity cannot change.

 

The wages of sin are death in more ways than one.  Abandoning the commandments literally becomes "The Way of Death" as discussed in the Didache.

 

 

The Two Ways

The first section (Chapters 1–6) begins: "There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between these two ways."^[22]

 

^....Chapter 2 contains the commandments against murder, adultery, corrupting boys, sexual promiscuity, theft, magic, sorcery, abortion, infanticide, coveting, perjury, false testimony, speaking evil, holding grudges, being double-minded, not acting as you speak, greed, avarice, hypocrisy, maliciousness, arrogance, plotting evil against neighbors, hate, narcissism and expansions on these generally, with references to the words of Jesus. Chapter 3 attempts to explain how one vice leads to another: anger to murder, concupiscence to adultery, and so forth. The whole chapter is excluded in Barnabas. A number of precepts are added in chapter 4, which ends: "This is the Way of Life." Verse 13 states you must not forsake the Lord's commandments, neither adding nor subtracting (see also Deut 4:2,12:32). The Way of Death (chapter 5) is a list of vices to be avoided

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

 

One can see this as the earliest Christian expression of a pragmatic theory of truth, as also expressed in Alma 32. 

[JLHPROF]

As I intimated in a prior post, some things are matters of immutable truth and are not merely practices that can be authoritatively changed by some future Church leader off in the unforseeable future.

 

I gave four examples: the declaration that Jesus is the Christ, that He was resurrected for the dead, that He atoned for the sins of mankind and that the priesthood has been restored and in accordance with Doctrine and Covenants 13 is never again to be taken from the earth.

 

I'm saying the divine law of chastity, tied in as it is to the doctrine of the eternal nature of the family unit with a marital covenant between a man and a woman, is among these immutable truths. It won't do to say that a prophet or apostle who affirms the law of chastity is only expressing his opinion and one need only wait until he and others like him die off thus clearing the way for change.

 

You may dispute this if you wish. But if you do, please own up to the fact that you are contradicting the recent unequivocal declaration of a current apostle as quoted in this thread.

 

I agree with all this.  Some truths are immutable, some things are administrative.  I doubt we'd agree on which are which but that is beside the main issue.

 

IF we believe, for example, that the law of Chastity as presently constituted is an immutable truth then how should a member respond if Church policy were ever to change it to allow something like SSM.

 

We can stamp our feet and say the Church will never change an immutable truth because they are led by God.  I am not as convinced.  So play hypothetical with me...IF the Church were to announce a change that you see as violating an immutable truth (whatever one you like) what do you do about it?  What is the correct stance for a member to take if such a thing were ever to happen?

 

IF the Church were ever to try and change an immutable truth would you accept it and sustain them in it?  I have an Uncle who is as TBM as they come.  Former Bishop,. Stake President, life long member, etc.  He said clearly that he could not support the ordination of women and would probably go inactive if that were to happen.

 

Is inactivity the only option open for a believing member when they can't support what they see as a change to an immutable truth?

[mfbukowski]

I hear you and agree but Pogi was posing his question from a "there is truth" framework

I agree that there is truth.

 

But for me, there are true behaviors, not true propositions about spirituality.  That is why we believe in orthopraxis, not "dogma" or "doctrine"

 

We are commanded to live a certain way, not believe certain propositions.  THAT is what eternal truth is- living correctly.  Faith is a principle of action and the truths of faith lead to correct, true, lifestyle choices.

 

It's the way of life, or the way of death.  Obey the rules, and we have the "Plan of Happiness".  Disobey the rules and we have hell on earth.

 

We all get to pick which way to follow.

 

Linguistic expressions are subject to eternal change- because language itself changes.  The meaning of language varies with context and there are no "eternal" propositions- just linguistic expressions which change as the language changes virtually daily

Edited February 11, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with all this.  Some truths are immutable, some things are administrative.  I doubt we'd agree on which are which but that is beside the main issue.

 

IF we believe, for example, that the law of Chastity as presently constituted is an immutable truth then how should a member respond if Church policy were ever to change it to allow something like SSM.

 

We can stamp our feet and say the Church will never change an immutable truth because they are led by God.  I am not as convinced.  So play hypothetical with me...IF the Church were to announce a change that you see as violating an immutable truth (whatever one you like) what do you do about it?  What is the correct stance for a member to take if such a thing were ever to happen?

 

IF the Church were ever to try and change an immutable truth would you accept it and sustain them in it?  I have an Uncle who is as TBM as they come.  Former Bishop,. Stake President, life long member, etc.  He said clearly that he could not support the ordination of women and would probably go inactive if that were to happen.

 

Is inactivity the only option open for a believing member when they can't support what they see as a change to an immutable truth?

What you present is a classic dilemma.

 

If there were to be an authoritative effort to change an immutable truth, it would be a sign the Church was in apostasy.

 

Yet that is not possible because of the promise that there will never again be a general apostasy, the priesthood authority and keys will never again be taken from the earth, etc.

 

I can't entertain a logical dilemma, even hypothetically, other than to rest assured that such a thing would never happen.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

This is precisely why we don't have "doctrine" and have to listen to the eternal argument about what constitutes doctrine.

 

We don't believe in it.

 

If you pass a recommend interview truthfully, you are a member in good standing.  There are no questions about doctrine.

[mfbukowski]

What you present is a classic dilemma.

 

If there were to be an authoritative effort to change an immutable truth, it would be a sign the Church was in apostasy.

 

Yet that is not possible because of the promise that there will never again be a general apostasy, the priesthood authority and keys will never again be taken from the earth, etc.

 

I can't entertain a logical dilemma other than to rest assured that such a thing would never happen.

The key to this is to understand that this quandary is totally semantic.

 

It assumes that there are eternal propositions which always mean the same thing in any language.  Even the meaning of "immutable" is not immutable.

 

"Truth" cannot be adequately defined- there are many many theories of what that word means.

 

"Apostasy" is in the eye of the beholder- ask any Catholic.

 

For that matter, ask John Dehlin.

Edited February 11, 2015 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

The wrong path would be to conclude that I can pick and choose based on my initial hunch and protest the words of the living prophets without sincere prayer and fasting and sure discernment on the matter, with the justification that "it is messy" and prophets change all the time so I am going to forge my own path without consulting God (not necessarily accusing you of such).  Well, sometimes they are right, so be careful. 

I would say that the wrong path would be to protest (contend with, dispute, etc.) the words of the living prophets given any amount of prayer and fasting. The way this doctrine is presented in 3 Nephi 11 makes it immutable.

 

Obviously there are occasions where God does change the particular guidance He gives to His children, the coming and fulfillment and going of the Law of Moses being a very good example.

 

And obviously God is very patient with the various ways people can negatively react to change in the short run, but in the long run His expectations are the same for all.

[mfbukowski]

Yet again I quote this Blake Ostler piece

 

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/

[cinepro]

If there were to be an authoritative effort to change an immutable truth, it would be a sign the Church was in apostasy.

 

Yet that is not possible because of the promise that there will never again be a general apostasy, the priesthood authority and keys will never again be taken from the earth, etc.

The reason it isn't possible is because if it changes, it wasn't "immutable" to begin with. We only thought it was.

The question isn't whether or not something is "immutable." The question is whether or not something is falsifiable. 

 

The reason we're so comfortable with the doctrines you listed in post #222 ("that Jesus is the Christ, that He was resurrected for the dead, that He atoned for the sins of mankind and that the priesthood has been restored and in accordance with Doctrine and Covenants 13 is never again to be taken from the earth") is that they are unfalsifiable.

 

But the Law of Chastity is falsifiable.  For example, we can argue that an immutable aspect of the Law of Chastity is that homosexual relations are an abomination and not okay with God, but I don't think that's immutable, because it's falsifiable.  How could that be "falsifiable" you might ask? 

 

Here's how.

 

As society changes in its views towards homosexual relationships, members of the Church (especially younger members of the Church) may also change in their views towards these relationships.  Eventually, more and more LDS will have close, personal experiences observing how gay people live, what they hope for, and what kind of relationships they have.

 

Right now, the Church is staking out its territory on the idea that we should somehow be accepting of gay LDS, but still consider any homosexual behavior to be sinful.  But this ground isn't going to hold.  As more and more LDS come to understand just what is being asked when gay LDS must live a celibate lifestyle*, and as more and more LDS see the positive effects gay parents and families can have on society and their communities, it will ultimately come down to "by their fruits ye shall know them" (no pun intended), and I suspect many LDS will be painted into a corner where they have to admit that the "fruits" of homosexual marriage and parents can actually be quite good, and not the immoral destructive force we were taught that it was.

 

At this point, there will be enough otherwise faithful LDS realizing that this one aspect of the Law of Chastity doesn't seem "Christian", but instead seems rooted more in a 19th and 20th century view of homosexuality (itself rooted in the cultural teachings of the Bible). 

 

The Church may try to hold ground on the issue, but I don't think it will be able to.  And if it does hold the line, it will be at a great cost.

 

So what's the time frame on this?  Honestly, I would have once estimated decades, but looking at the rapidity of change on the same-sex-marriage issue in just the last 8 years (and society's apparent 180-degree turn in a short time), it could all happen much sooner.

 

*Yes, I know you can argue that homosexuals aren't being asked to sacrifice any more than other single heterosexual members of the Church, but I suspect the weakness of this analogy will become more and more obvious as time goes on, and soon won't be convincing to anyone.

Edited February 11, 2015 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

I would say that the wrong path would be to protest (contend with, dispute, etc.) the words of the living prophets given any amount of prayer and fasting. The way this doctrine is presented in 3 Nephi 11 makes it immutable.

 

Obviously there are occasions where God does change the particular guidance He gives to His children, the coming and fulfillment and going of the Law of Moses being a very good example.

 

And obviously God is very patient with the various ways people can negatively react to change in the short run, but in the long run His expectations are the same for all.

The behaviors are constant, the expressions of the words change

 

OK all, I am done, sorry for all the posts so close together.

 

I will now go away.

[JLHPROF]

I can't entertain a logical dilemma, even hypothetically, other than to rest assured that such a thing would never happen.

 

In the eyes of many, many members and former members it has already happened.  I could give a list of years where changes to truths once considered immutable have happened and people (sometimes big quantities, sometimes small) have left.

 

The fact that something that you or I as individuals consider immutable hasn't changed yet should be beside the point.  Just because our personal sacred cows haven't been painted green yet and other peoples have shouldn't give us any additional comfort.  We are just waiting our turn.

 

If we proceed on your assumptions that 1. It can't happen and 2. If it does happen the truth wasn't immutable as we thought then in the end the gospel is basically worthless since EVERYTHING can change.

 

Eventually we may all end up as Trinitarians when the 27th Prophet and President of the Church proclaims his predecessors to be wrong.

[carbon dioxide]

As society changes in its views towards homosexual relationships, members of the Church (especially younger members of the Church) may also change in their views towards these relationships.  Eventually, more and more LDS will have close, personal experiences observing how gay people live, what they hope for, and what kind of relationships they have.

 

Right now, the Church is staking out its territory on the idea that we should somehow be accepting of gay LDS, but still consider any homosexual behavior to be sinful.  But this ground isn't going to hold.  As more and more LDS come to understand just what is being asked when gay LDS must live a celibate lifestyle, and as more and more LDS see the positive effects gay parents and families can have on society and their communities, it will ultimately come down to "by their fruits ye shall know them" (no pun intended), and I suspect many LDS will be painted into a corner where they have to admit that the "fruits" of homosexual marriage and parents can actually be quite good, and not the immoral destructive force we were taught that it was.

 

At this point, there will be enough otherwise faithful LDS realizing that this one aspect of the Law of Chastity doesn't seem "Christian", but instead seems rooted more in a 19th and 20th century view of homosexuality (itself rooted in the cultural teachings of the Bible). 

 

The Church may try to hold ground on the issue, but I don't think it will be able to.  And if it does hold the line, it will be at a great cost.

 

So what's the time frame on this?  Honestly, I would have once estimated decades, but looking at the rapidity of change on the same-sex-marriage issue in just the last 8 years (and society's apparent 180 ° ; turn in a short time), it could all happen much sooner.

The real question is do members believe that the Church is a church of man or a big social club.  Does God really care what century we are living in?  Does God really care about gaining popularity among the people on earth?  Does God change his standards to conform with what the standards of the people are? 

 

If the answer is no to all of this, then it really does not matter.  It does not matter if members of the Church change their attitude towards homosexuality.  God will not change his attitude and he will judge those in the 21st century the same as those who lived in the 19th century or the 1st century.  God does not take a public opinion poll to determine what is sin or what will be allowed when he judges us.  The scriptures say "I the Lord can not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance"  As a church, we must hold the line and stand by the standards God has set.  Society may change but we can not afford to change with society on critical issues. 

 

At what cost will this mean?  It does not matter.  If it costs us members so be it. If it greatly hinders the growth of the Church before Christ comes again, so be it.  If it paints the Church to be an organization of bigots so be it.  We know that when the Lord comes the wicked will be burned as stubble.  Is there any reason to believe that even one gay couple in a gay marriage will stand when that time occurs or will all of them be swept off the earth along with the other wicked.  We know who wins in the end.  We know who loses in the end.  The Church must keep the long view of how things play out.  Do we as a Church stand at the tree of life and endure the mockery of those who stand in the great and spacious building on the issue or do we join those in the great and spacious building and enjoy a moment of peace before a great fall?

Edited February 11, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Stone holm]

How would one falsify the idea that to produce spirit children a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother are required?

[cinepro]

The real question is do members believe that the Church is a church of man or a big social club or a Church that is run by God and its standards are determined by God.  Does God really care what century we are living in?  Does God really care about gaining popularity among the people on earth?  Does God change his standards to conform with what the standards of the people are? 

 

If the answer is no to all of this, then it really does not matter.  It does not matter if members of the Church change their attitude towards homosexuality.  God will not change his attitude and he will judge those in the 21st century the same as those who lived in the 19th century or the 1st century.  God does not take a public opinion poll to determine what is sin or what will be allowed when he judges us.  The scriptures say "I the Lord can not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance"  As a church, we must hold the line and stand by the standards God has set.  Society may change but we can not afford to change with society on critical issues. 

 

At what cost will this mean?  It does not matter.  If it costs us members so be it. If it greatly hinders the growth of the Church before Christ comes again, so be it.  If it paints the Church to be an organization of bigots so be it.  We know that when the Lord comes the wicked will be burned as stubble.  Is there any reason to believe that even one gay couple in a gay marriage will stand when that time occurs or will all of them be swept off the earth along with the other wicked.  We know who wins in the end.  We know who loses in the end.  The Church must keep the long view of how things play out.  Do we as a Church stand at the tree of life and endure the mockery of those who stand in the great and spacious building on the issue or do we join those in the great and spacious building and enjoy a moment of peace before a great fall?

 

 

Let me put it another way.

 

The scriptures and the Church like to present "faith" in a quasi-scientific way.  Do it, and look at the result.  "By their fruits ye shall know them."  Plant the seed, and see what kind of tree you get.  Pray about it, and see what kind of answer you get.  When you get certain feelings, that's the spirit telling you something is good.

 

We are in the beginnings of a grand spiritual experiment about homosexual relationships.  For the first time in history, we will be exposed to homosexual relationships that strive to be monogamous, faithful, nurturing, public and parental.  As with all marriages, some will be terrible, and some will fail.  But many will be good, and many will succeed. 

 

LDS will be exposed more and more to these relationships.  We will become friends with them.  We will see their relationships, and their children (adopted and biological).  Our kids will be friends with their kids. 

 

And at some point, each LDS will have to judge for ourselves the result of this experiment.  We will go to Church on Sunday, or read proclamations from Church leaders, telling us that these relationships are sinful, and bad, and harmful to society and God's plan.  But what do we see?  What is the data telling us?  What are the "fruits" of these relationships?  Do we feel the fruits of the spirit when we are around these families (love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith)? 

 

Obviously, I don't know what the data will be, or what the results of this experiment will be.  What I'm saying is that if the data show enough LDS that these relationships are "good", and the Spirit tells enough LDS that these marriages and families are "good", then the Church will have a huge problem on its hands.  Because it could have a generation of 40 year-olds scratching their heads and wondering why they were standing on a street corner in Los Angeles as a youth in 2008 holding a sign against SSM when, from what they can see, it's a great thing for everyone involved.

[rockpond]

Is there any reason to believe that even one gay couple in a gay marriage will stand when that time occurs or will all of them be swept off the earth along with the other wicked.  We know who wins in the end.  We know who loses in the end.  The Church must keep the long view of how things play out.  Do we as a Church stand at the tree of life and endure the mockery of those who stand in the great and spacious building on the issue or do we join those in the great and spacious building and enjoy a moment of peace before a great fall?

 

Wait... I keep getting confused... Who's in the great and spacious building?

 

 

[JLHPROF]

Wait... I keep getting confused... Who's in the great and spacious building?

 

 

 

Actually, a friend of mine likes to call Church Headquarters the Great and Spacious building -

 

Of course this same friend likes to point out how it blocks the temple from the east, the direction the Savior is returning from.  They seem to think it's getting leveled at some point to clear a path to the temple...

[carbon dioxide]

I agree with all this.  Some truths are immutable, some things are administrative.  I doubt we'd agree on which are which but that is beside the main issue.

 

IF we believe, for example, that the law of Chastity as presently constituted is an immutable truth then how should a member respond if Church policy were ever to change it to allow something like SSM.

 

We can stamp our feet and say the Church will never change an immutable truth because they are led by God.  I am not as convinced.  So play hypothetical with me...IF the Church were to announce a change that you see as violating an immutable truth (whatever one you like) what do you do about it?  What is the correct stance for a member to take if such a thing were ever to happen?

 

IF the Church were ever to try and change an immutable truth would you accept it and sustain them in it?  I have an Uncle who is as TBM as they come.  Former Bishop,. Stake President, life long member, etc.  He said clearly that he could not support the ordination of women and would probably go inactive if that were to happen.

 

Is inactivity the only option open for a believing member when they can't support what they see as a change to an immutable truth?

Can a doctrine be modified with a new revelation?  Yes.  Can our leaders be wrong on an issue?  Yes.  But I think it is reasonable to conclude that the vast majority of what our leaders have taught since the 19th century has been correct.  Why have prophets at all if most of the time they are probably wrong at what they are saying.  You don't need to be inspired or revelation to be right some of the time and wrong most of the time.  Anybody can do that.

 

Each members needs to decide what is foundational, eternal truth that can not be changed.  I could handle the ordination of women IF it came as a result of revelation because God wanted it to be that way and did not come from any pressure form outside forces.  I don't see the ordination of women to be a violation of eternal law.  I see the law of Chastity based on eternal law.  Any change with that to include something like gay relationships and SSM would be on the level of the Church saying the Book of Mormon is false, Jesus Christ did not exist or was just an inspired man but nothing else, he resurrection was symbolic ect  I would be forced as a member to tell all who asked me on what the LDS Church believes to say "Well today it teaches this, but that does not mean it will teach that tomorrow so don't trust anything the Church says as everything is up to be changed."  I would not go inactive if the church did this, I would resign my membership within a week.  Why be a part of an organization that really would stand for nothing because it will change fundamental doctrine.  What would be the next fundamental doctrine to be changed after that blockbuster?  Nothing would be certain in the Church. 

[carbon dioxide]

Let me put it another way.

 

The scriptures and the Church like to present "faith" in a quasi-scientific way.  Do it, and look at the result.  "By their fruits ye shall know them."  Plant the seed, and see what kind of tree you get.  Pray about it, and see what kind of answer you get.  When you get certain feelings, that's the spirit telling you something is good.

 

We are in the beginnings of a grand spiritual experiment about homosexual relationships.  For the first time in history, we will be exposed to homosexual relationships that strive to be monogamous, faithful, nurturing, public and parental.  As with all marriages, some will be terrible, and some will fail.  But many will be good, and many will succeed. 

 

LDS will be exposed more and more to these relationships.  We will become friends with them.  We will see their relationships, and their children (adopted and biological).  Our kids will be friends with their kids. 

 

And at some point, each LDS will have to judge for ourselves the result of this experiment.  We will go to Church on Sunday, or read proclamations from Church leaders, telling us that these relationships are sinful, and bad, and harmful to society and God's plan.  But what do we see?  What is the data telling us?  What are the "fruits" of these relationships?  Do we feel the fruits of the spirit when we are around these families (love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith)? 

 

Obviously, I don't know what the data will be, or what the results of this experiment will be.  What I'm saying is that if the data show enough LDS that these relationships are "good", and the Spirit tells enough LDS that these marriages and families are "good", then the Church will have a huge problem on its hands.  Because it could have a generation of 40 year-olds scratching their heads and wondering why they were standing on a street corner in Los Angeles as a youth in 2008 holding a sign against SSM when, from what they can see, it's a great thing for everyone involved.

One can find many examples of successful relationships where the couple is not even married.  One might even find examples of successful open marriages.  Hugh Hefner has lived a pretty good life.  He seems happy and has lived to a ripe old age.  Should I suggest that my sons should pattern their lives after him.  He has some fruits.   The wicked do prosper in this mortal life.  Righteous people often get beaten down and suffer.    We do know the results of these experiments will be in the end.  The Lord is not interested in these experiments. He is interested whether we will keep his commandments despite of the social experiments going on around us.  The Spirit will not tell us these relationships are good because wickedness is not happiness and the Spirit is grieved with wickedness.  Perhaps the Spirit will be seduced by Satan but I don't believe it.

 

Perhaps I would find a polygamist church to attend.  Not because of polygamy at least some of them would not buy into the satanic lie that something is good because one can find examples where SSM couples seemed to live an successful life. 

Edited February 11, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Stone holm]

I always find the "prosper" and "do not prosper" arguments interesting.  On the one hand we have loads of Scriptural and frequently talks suggesting that the righteous prosper and then we also have arguments that the wicked also prosper.  It gets a bit confusing at times.  The one thing that is fairly clear, however, is that the "If I Were a Rich Man" in Fiddler on the Roof pretty well nails it, we do tend to respect the opinions of the wealthy more than those of the poor.  Because we believe "they really know."  Personally, I don't think prosperity really should enter into the discussion at all.

[pogi]

 The Church may try to hold ground on the issue, but I don't think it will be able to.  

 

Why don't you think it will be able to, do you know the mind of the Lord on the matter or do you doubt the power and ability of the Lord?  If it is his will and his doctrine, no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing.  

 

 And if it does hold the line, it will be at a great cost.

 

 

Have you considered the cost of abandoning the Lord's will for popular public appeal?  Which will come at a greater cost?

 

If a doctrine is immutable, waiting around to see if it will be falsified before you will believe, will leave you eternally faithless.  There is a better way.

 

Here is what I live by: Always get on your knees before taking a stand.  This is the only way to stand guiltless at the last day.

 

Here is an absolutely incredible talk by Elder Oaks given in 1989.  It could not be more appropriate for our day today.  I highly suggest that everyone read it. 

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/alternate-voices?lang=eng

 

Other voices are the bleatings of lost souls who cannot hear the voice of the Shepherd and trot about trying to find their way without his guidance. Some of these voices call out guidance for others—the lost leading the lost.

 

 

Who does that sound like?

Edited February 11, 2015 by pogi

[DBMormon]

The reason it isn't possible is because if it changes, it wasn't "immutable" to begin with. We only thought it was.

The question isn't whether or not something is "immutable." The question is whether or not something is falsifiable. 

 

The reason we're so comfortable with the doctrines you listed in post #222 ("that Jesus is the Christ, that He was resurrected for the dead, that He atoned for the sins of mankind and that the priesthood has been restored and in accordance with Doctrine and Covenants 13 is never again to be taken from the earth") is that they are unfalsifiable.

 

But the Law of Chastity is falsifiable.  For example, we can argue that an immutable aspect of the Law of Chastity is that homosexual relations are an abomination and not okay with God, but I don't think that's immutable, because it's falsifiable.  How could that be "falsifiable" you might ask? 

 

Here's how.

 

As society changes in its views towards homosexual relationships, members of the Church (especially younger members of the Church) may also change in their views towards these relationships.  Eventually, more and more LDS will have close, personal experiences observing how gay people live, what they hope for, and what kind of relationships they have.

 

Right now, the Church is staking out its territory on the idea that we should somehow be accepting of gay LDS, but still consider any homosexual behavior to be sinful.  But this ground isn't going to hold.  As more and more LDS come to understand just what is being asked when gay LDS must live a celibate lifestyle*, and as more and more LDS see the positive effects gay parents and families can have on society and their communities, it will ultimately come down to "by their fruits ye shall know them" (no pun intended), and I suspect many LDS will be painted into a corner where they have to admit that the "fruits" of homosexual marriage and parents can actually be quite good, and not the immoral destructive force we were taught that it was.

 

At this point, there will be enough otherwise faithful LDS realizing that this one aspect of the Law of Chastity doesn't seem "Christian", but instead seems rooted more in a 19th and 20th century view of homosexuality (itself rooted in the cultural teachings of the Bible). 

 

The Church may try to hold ground on the issue, but I don't think it will be able to.  And if it does hold the line, it will be at a great cost.

 

So what's the time frame on this?  Honestly, I would have once estimated decades, but looking at the rapidity of change on the same-sex-marriage issue in just the last 8 years (and society's apparent 180-degree turn in a short time), it could all happen much sooner.

 

*Yes, I know you can argue that homosexuals aren't being asked to sacrifice any more than other single heterosexual members of the Church, but I suspect the weakness of this analogy will become more and more obvious as time goes on, and soon won't be convincing to anyone.

Cinepro, you nailed it. This is what I think will happen as well

[teddyaware]

Wait... I keep getting confused... Who's in the great and spacious building?

 

 

 

Really pathetic attempt. I've lived just outside of NYC for my entire life (I still drive into the center of Manhattan at least twice a week), and I can assure you this view of Salt Lake City is a Lilliputian version of anyone's great and spacious building. NYC has brothels that dwarf these modest structures.  

Edited February 12, 2015 by teddyaware

[jwhitlock]

As society changes in its views towards homosexual relationships, members of the Church (especially younger members of the Church) may also change in their views towards these relationships.  Eventually, more and more LDS will have close, personal experiences observing how gay people live, what they hope for, and what kind of relationships they have.

 

Right now, the Church is staking out its territory on the idea that we should somehow be accepting of gay LDS, but still consider any homosexual behavior to be sinful.  But this ground isn't going to hold.  As more and more LDS come to understand just what is being asked when gay LDS must live a celibate lifestyle*, and as more and more LDS see the positive effects gay parents and families can have on society and their communities, it will ultimately come down to "by their fruits ye shall know them" (no pun intended), and I suspect many LDS will be painted into a corner where they have to admit that the "fruits" of homosexual marriage and parents can actually be quite good, and not the immoral destructive force we were taught that it was.

 

 

 

An interesting speculation. However, the inferred assumption that this is the most likely result of SSM doesn't seem to be upheld by reality.

 

There's some baggage that comes along with SSM that's not being shed. For instance the concept of being "monogamish" among gay couples isn't going away and that's a concept diametrically opposed to the notion of chastity that Elder Christofferson is talking about. In addition, if we look at the experience of Massachusetts, where SSM has been in place the longest, we do not see a trend supporting the positive effect of SSM on society and communities in the long term.

 

I suspect that a more real outcome is that the church's stance on chastity per Elder Christofferson's statement is going to be ultimately confirmed as glaringly correct. 

[cinepro]

An interesting speculation. However, the inferred assumption that this is the most likely result of SSM doesn't seem to be upheld by reality.

 

There's some baggage that comes along with SSM that's not being shed. For instance the concept of being "monogamish" among gay couples isn't going away and that's a concept diametrically opposed to the notion of chastity that Elder Christofferson is talking about. In addition, if we look at the experience of Massachusetts, where SSM has been in place the longest, we do not see a trend supporting the positive effect of SSM on society and communities in the long term.

 

I suspect that a more real outcome is that the church's stance on chastity per Elder Christofferson's statement is going to be ultimately confirmed as glaringly correct. 

 

That's entirely possible.

 

But here's another way to look at it.  The Wall Street Journal has an article today about how 50 years ago, liberal Patrick Moynihan raised the alarm about the disintegration of the inner-city black family:

 

“The fundamental problem is that of family structure,” wrote Moynihan, who had a doctorate in sociology. “The evidence—not final but powerfully persuasive—is that the Negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling.”

 

For his troubles, Moynihan was denounced as a victim-blaming racist bent on undermining the civil-rights movement. Even worse, writes Harvard’s Paul Peterson in the current issue of the journal Education Next, Moynihan’s “findings were totally ignored by those who designed public policies at the time.” The Great Society architects would go on to expand old programs or formulate new ones that exacerbated the problems Moynihan identified. Marriage was penalized and single parenting was subsidized. In effect, the government paid mothers to keep fathers out of the home—and paid them well.

 

Looking back, the data is pretty clear that Moynihan was right. 

 

History has proved that Moynihan was onto something. When the report was released, about 25% of black children and 5% of white children lived in a household headed by a single mother. During the next 20 years the black percentage would double and the racial gap would widen. Today more than 70% of all black births are to unmarried women, twice the white percentage.

 

Now, how does this apply to the current conversation?

 

Well, Church leaders are, in effect, acting as a Patrick Moynihan, warning us about society's wayward direction on the subject of Same-Sex Marriage.

 

The problem is, 50 years from now the statistics will show that Church leaders were wrong.  And how do I know this?  Well, they have to be wrong because we're starting from a baseline of 0% of children of gay parents having married parents.  We're starting from a baseline of 0% of gay partners being married.  So 50 years from now, things might be almost the same (with very few gay marriages), or things might be a little better (with few gay couples being married), but there's no way we could have fewer gay couples married!

 

So unless there is some way in which having married, committed, monogamous gay couples is worse than having unmarried, uncommitted gay couples, things will have to be at least a little better.  And unless the Church is going to start arguing that gay couples should not be allowed to create or adopt children, then children will continue to be raised by gay parents and we have to ask whether we want those parents to be married or not.  What is better for the children?  I think having married gay parents is better than unmarried gay parents. 

 

So it's tough to see an outcome where people look back and say "Gee, those Mormons were right. Things were better when gay people couldn't get married and had to live together and raise children without the commitment that marriage implies."  It could happen, but I don't see how.