Elder Christofferson To Church News: Doctrine Is Not Changing

[Coreyb]

Perhaps the law of chastity never has changed and never will, but the way he defines it is not the way it has always been.

[bluebell]

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.

 

It's interesting that it's the religious exemption part of the press conference that you are seeing so much backlash against because I just read an article which states that most people in the country are in favor of such religious exemptions.

 

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/290883821.html

Edited February 7, 2015 by bluebell

[pogi]

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

 

"Public accommodations" as used in the first report is defined as such:

 

Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions were exempt.

 

 

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

 

"Public services" as used in the second report is only in relation to "government" entities.

 

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

 

I thought they were the same, my bad!

 

It did in deed say "public accommodations" in the first report however 

Edited February 7, 2015 by pogi

[Bobbieaware]

Perhaps the law of chastity never has changed and never will, but the way he defines it is not the way it has always been.

I'm surprised many here seem to be missing the 900 pound gorilla on this thread. No matter how you slice it, whether it be within the framework of monogamous or polygamous marriage, the only permissible sexual relations ever revealed from heaven to be compatible with the law of chastity -- no matter if taught in the scriptures or by the modern prophets -- is male-female. That element of the law of chastity has never changed and, according to elder Christofferson, it never will change.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Kenngo1969]

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

 

 

Sarah and I have a great working relationship.

Just ribbin' ya!   Although we've never met, unless you're waaaaay more thin-skinned and waaaaay less good-natured than I think you are, you can take it!

Edited February 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[rodheadlee]

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. 

There is nothing there that would ever constitute God sanctifying the homosexual sex act, which is a euphemism for marriage. As a man you can love your fellow man you just can't get to know them Biblically. 

Edited February 7, 2015 by rodheadlee

[Stargazer]

Quotes from the article above that I really liked

 

I didn't like the quotes at all.

 

It sounds like someone who has decided that he, rather than the Lord's anointed, is the arbiter of what is true, and the judge of what is doctrine.  And basically double-dog dares the Church to measure up to his standards. 

 

Arrogance in place of humility. 

 

He needs to start his own church.  That's clearly what he wants.

[california boy]

It's interesting that it's the religious exemption part of the press conference that you are seeing so much backlash against because I just read an article which states that most people in the country are in favor of such religious exemptions.

 

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/290883821.html

 

By far, the most troubling part of the press conference was hinting that the church would become actively involved in carving out religious exemptions from the civil rights laws.  Personally I could care less whether the church ever allows SSM.  It is a decision left completely up to church leaders.  But I fear that if the church gets involved politically in passing religious exemption laws, there will only be continued and reinforced labels of bigotry and racism heaped upon the church. 

 

As far as your post hinting that the majority in this country favor such religious exemptions is a bit misleading since 75% of those that favor SSm are against such religious exemptions and quite frankly at this point irrelevant on how this will eventually play out.  Even if the majority favor such exemptions now, the numbers are far less than the numbers that originally were against SSM.  

 

As soon as restaurants in the south start discriminating against blacks based on their "religious beliefs" Jews not allowed to shop at "christian stores"  Mormons not allowed to buy wedding cakes because they are not really christian will have a chilling effect on this whole idea.  I also think these laws will be tossed out by the Supreme Court because they go completely against the anti discrimination laws.  You can not have the anti discrimination laws that have been the law in this country for over a half of century and still discriminate no matter what the excuse is.  Period.  It just won't be found legal.  what ever majority now enjoyed on this issue would disappear quicker than morning frost.

 

It would be a much better path for christians to follow if they would only look to He who they claim to follow, and offer service to all, even the sinner.  I certainly wish the church would follow such a path.  To start down a different path where discrimination is based on whether you think a person is sinning will not only be found illegal and against the law as has been the case already, but it will further push people away from all organized religion.  The younger generation despises discrimination against anyone.  They have too many friends that are black, gay, Jewish, Mormon Muslin etc. to want to discriminate and mask it somehow as following Christ.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just ribbin' ya!   Although we've never met, unless you're waaaaay more thin-skinned and waaaaay less good-natured than I think you are, you can take it!

No problem. I have two female superiors at the Church News, and I'll say upfront they are the best two immediate supervisers I've ever had, female or male.

[Stone holm]

It's interesting that it's the religious exemption part of the press conference that you are seeing so much backlash against because I just read an article which states that most people in the country are in favor of such religious exemptions.

 

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/290883821.html

I am in New England, I expect the views are very different in the former Confederacy and State of Deseret.

[Pahoran]

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?

Thank you for admitting that you have to change the scope of Elder Christofferson's statement in order to find something to quibble about.

As you know, his assertion consists of a single rather atomic sentence:

"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."

He did not say or imply that all of our doctrine is unchanged and will never change; he was talking explicitly about one particular doctrine. Therefore your rather boring quibble about changing doctrines is irrelevant.

However, if someone were to start another thread, in which the question might actually be on topic, I would argue that, in fact, our doctrine does not change and has not changed.

But that is another discussion. A topic for another thread.

This is not that thread.

However, I rather suspect that you and I both know that, if such a thread were to be started, there would be exactly and only two (2) items put forward as examples of the chaotic flux that some imagine LDS doctrine to be.

And the Law of Chastity will not be one of them.  Elder Christofferson is right: it has not changed, and no intelligent person expects it to change.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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. 

 

Actually the Church has never defined marriage as "a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman, and a woman...."  Plural marriage, as the name itself implies, means a plurality of marriages.  A man with three wives was a man who was in three marriages, not a man in one marriage involving four parties.

 

You're welcome.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

I am in New England, I expect the views are very different in the former Confederacy and State of Deseret.

Snooty and insulting dismissal noted.

I clicked on Bluebell's link and found that it was a wire service story. And though it had a Salt Lake City dateline, it reported on a national poll, one of the writers was reporting out of Washington, and nobody quoted in the story was from either the South or Utah. One was from Michigan and the other from California.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

Thank you for admitting that you have to change the scope of Elder Christofferson's statement in order to find something to quibble about.

As you know, his assertion consists of a single rather atomic sentence:

"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."

He did not say or imply that all of our doctrine is unchanged and will never change; he was talking explicitly about one particular doctrine. Therefore your rather boring quibble about changing doctrines is irrelevant.

However, if someone were to start another thread, in which the question might actually be on topic, I would argue that, in fact, our doctrine does not change and has not changed.

But that is another discussion. A topic for another thread.

This is not that thread.

However, I rather suspect that you and I both know that, if such a thread were to be started, there would be exactly and only two (2) items put forward as examples of the chaotic flux that some imagine LDS doctrine to be.

And the Law of Chastity will not be one of them.  Elder Christofferson is right: it has not changed, and no intelligent person expects it to change.

Regards,

Pahoran

So only intelligent people agree with you?  well thanks..... If only it were that easy.   anyone who disagrees is unintelligent.  that settles it 

[Rob Osborn]

I am beginning to think the GLBT movement is the "strong delusion" spoken of in scripture-

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thes. 2:10-12)

http://www.pureintimacy.org/p/pro-gay-revisionist-theology-an-overview/

[Pahoran]

So only intelligent people agree with you?  well thanks..... If only it were that easy.   anyone who disagrees is unintelligent.  that settles it 

 

Sigh.

 

I don't believe I said that.  Can you point to where I did?

 

To start with, I wouldn't be surprised if unintelligent people agree with me.

 

Second, I'm fully aware that a great many intelligent people disagree with me on many things.

 

I just don't happen to think that this particular issue is one of them.

 

The Church did not renege on the Law of Chastity all through the so-called "sexual revolution."  After half a century of, like, peace and love, man, people still can't shack up and expect to remain members in good standing.

 

Knowing this, why would anyone with two clues to rub together expect the Church to cave in on the most gross forms of sexual immorality?

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

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%

God doesn't do all his work through the LDS Church.

Martin Luther wasn't LDS and neither was Martin Luther King. But both were inspired. Martin Luther's reformation prepared people for the coming Restoration. Martin Luther King's reformation prepared people for the revelation on Priesthood.

If God had used His Church as the vehicle to lead the way in civil rights, the South might have never softened.

Line upon line, precept on precept. It's not a contradiction, but a higher level of wisdom and order.

[Teancum]

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.

Once again we agree.

[DBMormon]

 no intelligent person expects it to change.

 

So only unintelligent people can possibly think this will change?  to diminsh those who disagree with you as stupid seems like a weak way to present your argument.

Edited February 8, 2015 by DBMormon

[Teancum]

I'm surprised many here seem to be missing the 900 pound gorilla on this thread. No matter how you slice it, whether it be within the framework of monogamous or polygamous marriage, the only permissible sexual relations ever revealed from heaven to be compatible with the law of chastity -- no matter if taught in the scriptures or by the modern prophets -- is male-female. That element of the law of chastity has never changed and, according to elder Christofferson, it never will change.

And allegedly male-females....

[Bobbieaware]

And allegedly male-females....

Redundant. Retread my post. Did you not see I addressed this aspect of chastity in my post?

[Teancum]

Redundant. Retread my post. Did you not see I addressed this aspect of chastity in my post?

I just felt it important to emphasize....

[Bobbieaware]

I just felt it important to emphasize....

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob thank you.

[Teancum]

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob thank you.

So what's your point?

[Thinking]

So...a statement by a GA in an article in the Deseret News constitutes official doctrine?