Elder Christofferson To Church News: Doctrine Is Not Changing

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

This, exactly.  The law of chastity will not change, but it will be reinterpreted, as almost every doctrine since the beginning of the Church has been.  It will be stated that some aspect was misunderstood and a clarification will be the new doctrine.  It may take decades but historical precendent is everywhere.

 

It has happened in almost every area of doctrine beyond the first principles (and even to the first principles a bit).

[carbon dioxide]

This, exactly.  The law of chastity will not change, but it will be reinterpreted, as almost every doctrine since the beginning of the Church has been.  It will be stated that some aspect was misunderstood and a clarification will be the new doctrine.  It may take decades but historical precendent is everywhere.

 

It has happened in almost every area of doctrine beyond the first principles (and even to the first principles a bit).

The Law of Chastity does not need to be reinterpreted.  It seems pretty black and white to me.  Some doctrines of the Church are clarified and expanded over time through revelation but that expansion does not go against what has been established but that does not mean that all teaching is like that.  There is nothing to suggest that God will reinterpret the doctrine regarding murder and allow situations where it is ok to kill an innocent human being.   Nor should we assume that the doctrine regarding stealing will be reinterpreted to allow situations where people can steal from their neighbor.  Some things are what they are and do not need to be changed because they are finished laws or doctrines.  Nothing else needs to be built upon them.  Chastity is one of those things.

Edited February 8, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[JLHPROF]

 Some doctrines of the Church are clarified and expanded over time through revelation

 

That's an assumption on the part of the members.  There has been no canonized revelation on any subject in years.  So any adjustments we are only able to assume came by revelation.  We have no canon to stand behind.

 

 

but that expansion does not go against what has been established but that does not mean that all teaching is like that.

 

Except when it does.

Edited February 8, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Stone holm]

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.

Hm, sensitive to the fact that the residents of the State of Deseret tend to share viewpoints with the former Confederacy? I was just explaining the difference between viewpoints between the two regions.

[CV75]

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?

 

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?

I don’t think it could be said in good faith that the doctrine of Christ as defined and set forth in 3 Nephi 11 and 27 (as indicated by the symbolism of the “rock” in chapter 11), has changed or will change. Some of the points of His unchanging doctrine has to do with what His servants say and do.

Inasmuch as the Lord increases light and knowledge in His kingdom on earth, and introduces it doctrinally through authorized and commissioned prophets and apostles, presumptions to get ahead of them with the light and sparks of one’s own fire runs contrary to His doctrine.

[cinepro]

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. 

 

One could.  I only take exception to the charade that we're supposed to pretend that such things unchanging and set in stone.  The LDS Church is 185 years old.  The idea that there is some sort of unchanging "law" in the Church about marriage relationships, the legality of those arrangements, and the type and number of people who can enter into them is absurd. 

 

If anything, history teaches us that we need to have faith in our current leaders, and be open to change and willing to adapt as leaders are inspired to make changes.  Which is the opposite of what Elder Christensen said.

[Pahoran]

Stone Holm wrote:

 

Hm, sensitive to the fact that the residents of the State of Deseret tend to share viewpoints with the former Confederacy? I was just explaining the difference between viewpoints between the two regions.

And thus we see the Yankee elitist indulging the fallacy of guilt by association.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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.

If you know anyone who has a valid argument to put forward as to why they should expect it to change, I'd be interested to read it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[MatterOfFact88]

I think we need to understand what the "Doctrine" actually is. The doctrine is the root of the law given. There are what are called "Principles" of the church. These change all the time. For example, the minimum age requirement for people to go on a mission is a principle. It used to be 19 for men and 21 for women. Now it is 18 for men and 19 for women.

 

Another example is in the Book of Mormon, in 1st Nephi chapter 4. Nephi is commanded to kill Laban. But it wasn't just killing him, it was killing him in his drunken sleep, practically murder. Now, the law is "Thou shalt not kill," yet the Lord commands Nephi to do otherwise. Was doctrine broken? No. The law "Thou shalt not kill," is a principle. The doctrine here is this: The Lord is the true giver and taker of life. He is the true judge of who lives and who dies, and how that happens. This is why murder is so high on the list of severe sins, because doing so pretty much replaces God's judgement. We put our judgement as better than God's.

 

This same piece of Doctrine also applies to the law of chastity. The Lord decides how children should come into the world, and how the power of procreation should be used. For example, when polygamy was put in place for the early Saints by Joseph Smith. He himself never participated in this, and as far as I know only a select few were allowed to do this at first. True, it ended when Deseret became a part of the United States, and the Supreme Court ruled that Polygamy was illegal. But later it was revealed that this was the best course of action. Could Polygamy be allowed again? Maybe, but I doubt it. Polygamy is the exception, not the rule. I will paraphrase Jacob 2 verse 30 on this, and this is God speaking about polygamy. "A man shall only have one wife. If I desire seed to be raised up, I will command polygamy to be practiced. Otherwise, follow the things I have spoken."

 

As for the homosexuality issue, I've found that it is very rare when the President of the Church or the Apostles say "never" in regards to something. The Lord will not lie. He cannot lie, if he does he wouldn't still be God. The proclamation that the church will never change their stance on homosexuality is a very powerful message. The line has been drawn and set in stone.

[ERayR]

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

 

Nope but it is a statement of what has been official doctrine, what is now official doctrine and what will remain official doctrine.

[Thinking]

After seeing this picture, there is no doubt that D. Todd Christofferson has angelic powers from heaven. I'll be back at church next week.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/27/mormon-church-breaks-silence-warn-intolerance-lgbt-advocates#img-1

[Scott Lloyd]

Stone Holm wrote:

 

And thus we see the Yankee elitist indulging the fallacy of guilt by association.

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm tempted to ask if all New Englanders are like that. But then I would be committing the same offense.

I've been watching too many M*A*S*H episodes, I guess.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm tempted to ask if all New Englanders are like that.

 

When I lived in New England, most people seemed to think that a 'progressive Vermonter' was one who'd finally made the switch from an outhouse to an indoor toilet.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[DBMormon]

I don’t think it could be said in good faith that the doctrine of Christ as defined and set forth in 3 Nephi 11 and 27 (as indicated by the symbolism of the “rock” in chapter 11), has changed or will change. Some of the points of His unchanging doctrine has to do with what His servants say and do.

Inasmuch as the Lord increases light and knowledge in His kingdom on earth, and introduces it doctrinally through authorized and commissioned prophets and apostles, presumptions to get ahead of them with the light and sparks of one’s own fire runs contrary to His doctrine.

If we strip Doctrine down to the bare bones you speak of I 100% agree and I also define "Christ's" Doctrine that way

[DBMormon]

If you know anyone who has a valid argument to put forward as to why they should expect it to change, I'd be interested to read it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Because Mormonism is always changing.  Because our beliefs are always changing

Cremation was once seen as a bad thing to do that was counciled not to do -   not any more

Blacks were less valiant and fence sitters - not anymore

The Church told women to stay at home - not anymore

The Church told you not to limit # of children - not anymore

The Church told you no oral sex - not anymore

The Church taught interracial marriage was sin - not anymore

One apostle might have objected but the other 14 taught Adam was God - Not anymore

Lectures on faith were once scriptural cannon - not anymore

There are many others

1.) Some of the above was taught taught and considered Doctrine in its day.  It has changed.  We have precedent of Doctrine changing.

 

2.) We have a tendency of backing off many of the hard line approaches we take as new info comes to light and much of what we have framed the "gay" issue around has been misinformation and bad assumptions (gay is a choice, masturbation leads to homosexuality, it can be fixed w/ shock therapy and other methods, encouraging gays to marry the opposite gender, etc..) At many turns we have have had to retract our counsel and advice on this issue and little by little our approach has softened and definitely changed.  We have stripped it down to this one last line in the sand.  We have essentially said "we have been wrong on so much of the context of this issue but this last rope we are definitely hanging on to and not letting go".  

 

Time will tell but in historical context the Church has moved towards being softer and more inclusive along with letting go of nonsense on this issue and I see no reason that will stop.

Edited February 9, 2015 by DBMormon

[california boy]

I think we need to understand what the "Doctrine" actually is. The doctrine is the root of the law given. There are what are called "Principles" of the church. These change all the time. For example, the minimum age requirement for people to go on a mission is a principle. It used to be 19 for men and 21 for women. Now it is 18 for men and 19 for women.

 

Another example is in the Book of Mormon, in 1st Nephi chapter 4. Nephi is commanded to kill Laban. But it wasn't just killing him, it was killing him in his drunken sleep, practically murder. Now, the law is "Thou shalt not kill," yet the Lord commands Nephi to do otherwise. Was doctrine broken? No. The law "Thou shalt not kill," is a principle. The doctrine here is this: The Lord is the true giver and taker of life. He is the true judge of who lives and who dies, and how that happens. This is why murder is so high on the list of severe sins, because doing so pretty much replaces God's judgement. We put our judgement as better than God's.

 

This same piece of Doctrine also applies to the law of chastity. The Lord decides how children should come into the world, and how the power of procreation should be used. For example, when polygamy was put in place for the early Saints by Joseph Smith. He himself never participated in this, and as far as I know only a select few were allowed to do this at first. True, it ended when Deseret became a part of the United States, and the Supreme Court ruled that Polygamy was illegal. But later it was revealed that this was the best course of action. Could Polygamy be allowed again? Maybe, but I doubt it. Polygamy is the exception, not the rule. I will paraphrase Jacob 2 verse 30 on this, and this is God speaking about polygamy. "A man shall only have one wife. If I desire seed to be raised up, I will command polygamy to be practiced. Otherwise, follow the things I have spoken."

 

As for the homosexuality issue, I've found that it is very rare when the President of the Church or the Apostles say "never" in regards to something. The Lord will not lie. He cannot lie, if he does he wouldn't still be God. The proclamation that the church will never change their stance on homosexuality is a very powerful message. The line has been drawn and set in stone.

 

Are you really saying that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy????

[california boy]

Nope but it is a statement of what has been official doctrine, what is now official doctrine and what will remain official doctrine.

 

The law of chastity has always been no sex outside of marriage.  It is only very recent that the church has stated that it does not include gay marriage in that law.

 

Elder Christofferson is not stating anything new.  No reported revelation has come.  It is certainly the current position of the church.  No one is disupting that.

[CV75]

If we strip Doctrine down to the bare bones you speak of I 100% agree and I also define "Christ's" Doctrine that way

I’m not sure how much I’m stripping it down. There is a lot of rich detail in the two chapters I mentioned, and 2 Nephi 31 as well. Among many points of doctrine is one about feasting upon the word of Christ (2 Nephi 31:20) and one about not disputing with those through whom His word comes (3 Nephi 11:23, 24, 41).

Given that the Lord calls imperfect people to both lead and to follow, everyone is on equal grounds. Key to His doctrine is that we not dispute His servants. I think this is because no one can have any better word to offer while lacking the authority and commission to either receive it or testify of it, especially if walking contrary to their words.

Stripping it down to faith-repentance-baptism-endurance and the like overlooks a lot of important points, given first hand of the Lord, as to how we are to treat His servants’ role and words.

[DBMormon]

I’m not sure how much I’m stripping it down. There is a lot of rich detail in the two chapters I mentioned, and 2 Nephi 31 as well. Among many points of doctrine is one about feasting upon the word of Christ (2 Nephi 31:20) and one about not disputing with those through whom His word comes (3 Nephi 11:23, 24, 41).

Given that the Lord calls imperfect people to both lead and to follow, everyone is on equal grounds. Key to His doctrine is that we not dispute His servants. I think this is because no one can have any better word to offer while lacking the authority and commission to either receive it or testify of it, especially if walking contrary to their words.

Stripping it down to faith-repentance-baptism-endurance and the like overlooks a lot of important points, given first hand of the Lord, as to how we are to treat His servants’ role and words.

I agree.  All I am simply saying is for many the appendages are the Doctrine

[mfbukowski]

After seeing this picture, there is no doubt that D. Todd Christofferson has angelic powers from heaven. I'll be back at church next week.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/27/mormon-church-breaks-silence-warn-intolerance-lgbt-advocates#img-1

[Coreyb]

I think we need to understand what the "Doctrine" actually is. The doctrine is the root of the law given. There are what are called "Principles" of the church. These change all the time. For example, the minimum age requirement for people to go on a mission is a principle. It used to be 19 for men and 21 for women. Now it is 18 for men and 19 for women.

 

Another example is in the Book of Mormon, in 1st Nephi chapter 4. Nephi is commanded to kill Laban. But it wasn't just killing him, it was killing him in his drunken sleep, practically murder. Now, the law is "Thou shalt not kill," yet the Lord commands Nephi to do otherwise. Was doctrine broken? No. The law "Thou shalt not kill," is a principle. The doctrine here is this: The Lord is the true giver and taker of life. He is the true judge of who lives and who dies, and how that happens. This is why murder is so high on the list of severe sins, because doing so pretty much replaces God's judgement. We put our judgement as better than God's.

 

This same piece of Doctrine also applies to the law of chastity. The Lord decides how children should come into the world, and how the power of procreation should be used. For example, when polygamy was put in place for the early Saints by Joseph Smith. He himself never participated in this, and as far as I know only a select few were allowed to do this at first. True, it ended when Deseret became a part of the United States, and the Supreme Court ruled that Polygamy was illegal. But later it was revealed that this was the best course of action. Could Polygamy be allowed again? Maybe, but I doubt it. Polygamy is the exception, not the rule. I will paraphrase Jacob 2 verse 30 on this, and this is God speaking about polygamy. "A man shall only have one wife. If I desire seed to be raised up, I will command polygamy to be practiced. Otherwise, follow the things I have spoken."

 

As for the homosexuality issue, I've found that it is very rare when the President of the Church or the Apostles say "never" in regards to something. The Lord will not lie. He cannot lie, if he does he wouldn't still be God. The proclamation that the church will never change their stance on homosexuality is a very powerful message. The line has been drawn and set in stone.

You are new here so I will be nice. Joseph smith certainly did practice polygamy. He had at least 33 wives and possibly more. It was not taught as something for a select few, but was taught as a requirement for exaltation. The institutional church admits to this.

[mfbukowski]

You are new here so I will be nice. Joseph smith certainly did practice polygamy. He had at least 33 wives and possibly more. It was not taught as something for a select few, but was taught as a requirement for exaltation. The institutional church admits to this.

And has done so recently.

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

[Calm]

And has done so recently.

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

It has also been in the Institute manual for the last 35 years (actually last 50 years probably given it was in the previous one too) but that was bare bones info in comparison with the recent article.

[Scott Lloyd]

After seeing this picture, there is no doubt that D. Todd Christofferson has angelic powers from heaven. I'll be back at church next week.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/27/mormon-church-breaks-silence-warn-intolerance-lgbt-advocates#img-1

I also noticed this.

If the photographer didn't shoot from this angle with this backdrop on purpose (a disinct possibility) it was poor photo selection. Photojournalists are taught to avoid distracting backgrounds, utility poles apparently growing out of heads, that sort of thing.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The law of chastity has always been no sex outside of marriage.  It is only very recent that the church has stated that it does not include gay marriage in that law.

 

Elder Christofferson is not stating anything new.  No reported revelation has come.  It is certainly the current position of the church.  No one is disupting that.

That's because gay "marriage" has not been seriously entertained as a possibility until now.

This is ridiculous revisionism. I don't recall a time in the Church when homosexual behavior was tolerated as anything other than grave sin. Spencer W. Kimball's book Miracle of Forgiveness extends back at least a couple of generations. When I was a student at BYU in the mid 70s Boyd K. Packer gave a fireside address that strongly condemned it. The group Affirmation was formed about that time to pressure the Church into changing its stance -- to no avail.

But to your point: Mosiah 4:29-30.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd