Elder Christofferson To Church News: Doctrine Is Not Changing

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

Small quibble. This is a misunderstanding of the US law. The anti-discrimination laws are statutory, and not constitutional laws. If Congress passed laws (statutory laws) that said people had a religious right to discriminate in certain circumstances, then the US Supreme Court could not use other statutory law (like the Civil Rights Act) to over turn them. It would have to be something found in the Constitution.

 

Just FYI.

[Kenngo1969]

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

Is it him, or is it the flying saucer behind him?

[MatterOfFact88]

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

 

Okay, so after looking up a number of different church sponsored articles, it seems I was wrong about that.

 

 

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.

 

In my readings, I have found little that says men were required to have multiple wives for exaltation. There was the law that the man had to have the permission of his first wife to do so. If not, it was adultery. In this case, obedience to a law God put in place would lead to condemnation, if it truly was a requirement. 

[Coreyb]

Okay, so after looking up a number of different church sponsored articles, it seems I was wrong about that.

 

 

 

In my readings, I have found little that says men were required to have multiple wives for exaltation. There was the law that the man had to have the permission of his first wife to do so. If not, it was adultery. In this case, obedience to a law God put in place would lead to condemnation, if it truly was a requirement.

I just posted to correct some misinformation. If you want to discuss/debate this we will have to go to another thread so as not to derail this one.

[Pahoran]

DBMormon wrote:
 

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

How could that possibly be relevant?
 

Blacks were less valiant and fence sitters - not anymore

Call for references, please. Give me one authoritative source that EVER supported the "fence sitter" nonsense.

Just one will do.

Or admit that you are padding your list.
 

The Church told women to stay at home - not anymore

O, that rebellious innovator, Brigham Young! How dare he change that long-established doctrine!
 

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

I was wondering whether these old chestnuts might get dredged up.

You've got all the old standard anti-Mormon talking points down pat, haven't you?
 

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

CFR on "the other 14" please.
 

Lectures on faith were once scriptural cannon - not anymore

You don't read much, do you? That one's been thoroughly debunked.
 

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.

Here's the thing, DB. Even if that cartoonish caricature was accurate -- and it certainly is not -- not one of those factoids, nor all of them together, even begin to approach the fundamental centrality of the Law of Chastity.
 

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.

There is no "nonsense" in view; apart from the content of your post, that is. The Law of Chastity is not "nonsense," it is an unchanging fundamental.

Since we are both predicting future events, which cannot be known for certain until they happen, I'm going to add another: while you will not live to see the Church reneging on the Law of Chastity, or accepting "same sex marriage" as a valid arrangement, you will live to see the homosexualist lobby reneging on their promise to never try to force a church to perform "same sex marriages" contrary to their doctrine.

That's my prediction.

 

Let's see whose comes to fruition first, shall we?

 

But tell me, DB: when (not if) my prediction comes true, who will you be cheering for?

Regards,
Pahoran

[Pahoran]

California Boy wrote:

 

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.

It's only very recent that corrupt lawmakers have begun to call unchaste relationships "marriages."

 

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.

And it has always been the position of the Church.

Make no mistake about that.

Let's review what Elder Christofferson actually 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.”

So: to be acceptable before God, the marriage must be (1) between a man and a woman, (2) legal (i.e. obedient to human law) and (3) lawful (i.e. obedient to divine law.)

There is simply no room for "same sex marriage" in that.

Sorry.

And let's be clear: if ever human law becomes so badly corrupted as to make real marriage a mockery, the Lord will direct the Church to ignore human law.

Regards,

Pahoran

[JLHPROF]

And let's be clear: if ever human law becomes so badly corrupted as to make real marriage a mockery, the Lord will direct the Church to ignore human law.

 

 

Yeah, the Church tried than in the 1880's.  They almost lost everything, and rather than do that the members pushed for an end to the different marital beliefs they had and an acceptance of human law.

 

Once the members of the Church reach the point they become of the same mindset concerning SSM as they did concerning plural marriage in the late 1880s the next "manifesto" will be issued.  Once they start losing property, tax-exempt status, or a leader goes to jail for discrimination you will see exactly what happened in 1890.

Edited February 9, 2015 by JLHPROF

[carbon dioxide]

Yeah, the Church tried than in the 1880's.  They almost lost everything, and rather than do that the members pushed for an end to the different marital beliefs they had.

 

One the members of the Church become of the same mindset concerning SSM as they did concerning plural marriage in the late 1880s the next "manifesto" will be issued.

If a manifesto is issues that says that SSM is ok and can be done in temples, might as well burn the temples down.  They will be completely worthless.

[JLHPROF]

If a manifesto is issues that says that SSM is ok and can be done in temples, might as well burn the temples down.  They will be completely worthless.

 

100% agreed.  But history is not on our side.

[Coreyb]

If a manifesto is issues that says that SSM is ok and can be done in temples, might as well burn the temples down.  They will be completely worthless.

Funny, similar sentiments where made pre-manifesto

[sjdawg]

 

 

 

 

In my readings, I have found little that says men were required to have multiple wives for exaltation. There was the law that the man had to have the permission of his first wife to do so. If not, it was adultery. In this case, obedience to a law God put in place would lead to condemnation, if it truly was a requirement. 

 

 

Oops.   Another strike against JS.   No permission from the first wife

[JLHPROF]

In my readings, I have found little that says men were required to have multiple wives for exaltation. There was the law that the man had to have the permission of his first wife to do so. If not, it was adultery. In this case, obedience to a law God put in place would lead to condemnation, if it truly was a requirement. 

 

Oops.   Another strike against JS.   No permission from the first wife

 

The man was exempt from this rule IF the woman rejected plural marriage completely.  She had a say in which wives he married, NOT in his right to live the law of plural marriage.

Emma rejected plural marriage completely after a couple of temporary half-hearted attempts.  Therefore Joseph no longer was required to seek her permission.

As for adultery:

D&C 132:61 - "And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."

 

And before anyone brings up polyandry, this refers to eternal sealings, not civil marriages.  Only in one possible case did one of Joseph's polyandrous wives have an eternal companion already.  There was no adultery because they belonged to no other.

 

I think you might need to do a little more research.

Edited February 9, 2015 by JLHPROF

[carbon dioxide]

100% agreed.  But history is not on our side.

I think there are a lot of differences in how the legal system works today verses 1880.  People are better educated and the government could not get away with as much today.  Plus the people are better armed. 

[carbon dioxide]

Oops.   Another strike against JS.   No permission from the first wife

Obedience to God is higher than obedience to your spouse.  If the first wife does not give permission but God commands, than does one reject God command to make the wife happy?  Its an easy decision for me if I was in that position.  Who is in control of my eternal destiny?  God or my wife?  I guess one option would be just divorce the first wife if one had to come down to it.  I don't know if that was an option for Joseph.

[Scott Lloyd]

100% agreed.  But history is not on our side.

Some among the Nephites were saying that right up to the time the sign was given that Christ had been born into the world.

I agree with Pahoran. And the moment we as a people reject the Lord's law of chastity is the moment He will reject us as a people.

But we needn't worry about that. There will never again be another general apostasy. See D&C 13 pertaining to that.

There may well be an alarming increase in individual apostasy, however. In fact, we may well be seeing the beginnings of that now.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oops.   Another strike against JS.   No permission from the first wife

As I understand it, Emma waffled on plural marriage, at times accepting it, at other times rejecting it, and ultimately denying Joseph ever taught it.

I'm not one to judge Emma harshly, but neither should her instability be used as an occasion to judge Joseph harshly.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, the Church tried than in the 1880's.  They almost lost everything, and rather than do that the members pushed for an end to the different marital beliefs they had and an acceptance of human law.

 

Once the members of the Church reach the point they become of the same mindset concerning SSM as they did concerning plural marriage in the late 1880s the next "manifesto" will be issued.  Once they start losing property, tax-exempt status, or a leader goes to jail for discrimination you will see exactly what happened in 1890.

If that's truly where we're headed, all the more reason to get on the religious-freedom bandwagon now instead of saying unkind things or tolerating them being said about our leaders for championing it. Edited February 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

 

Call for references, please. Give me one authoritative source that EVER supported the "fence sitter" nonsense.

Just one will do.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to." 

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have." 

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality

and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth.

Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes. 

The First Presidency

=========================================

1947 correspondence between first presidency and Dr.  Lowery Nelson

page 7

========================================

"…if all the spirits were equally faithful in their first estate [but] are placed in such dissimilar circumstances in their second estate… Among the two-thirds who remained [after the Devil was east out], it is highly probable, that, there were many who were not valient [sic] in the war, but whose sins were of such a nature that they could be forgiven...." (The Seer, 1 [April 1853]: 54-56).

=============================================

“Others there were, who may not have rebelled against God [in the war in heaven], and yet were so indifferent in their support of the righteous cause of our Redeemer, that they forfeited certain privileges and powers granted to those who were more valiant for God and correct principle. We have, I think, a demonstration of this in the seed of Ham. The first Pharaoh-patriarch-king of Egypt was a grandson of Ham: ... [Noah] cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood ... Now, why is it that the seed of Ham was cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood? Why is it that his seed could not have right to the Priesthood? Ham's wife was named ‘Egyptus’, which in the Chaldaic signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden; ... and thus from Ham sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land... Was the wife of Ham, as her name signifies, of a race which those who held the Priesthood were forbidden to intermarry? Was she a descendant of Cain, who was cursed for murdering his brother? And was it by Ham marrying her, and she being saved from the flood in the ark, that ‘the race which preserved the curse in the land’ was perpetuated? If so, then I believe that race is the one through which it is ordained those spirits that were not valiant in the great rebellion in heaven should come; who through their indifference or lack of integrity to righteousness, rendered themselves unworthy of the Priesthood and its powers, and hence it is withheld from them to this day” (The Contributor, 6:296-97).

====================================================

And then in 1912 the First presidency renounced it saying there was no authoritative statement.  By that standard we have very few authoritative statements on anything including Elder Christofferson's statement which would not meet this standard.

[sunstoned]

Obedience to God is higher than obedience to your spouse.  If the first wife does not give permission but God commands, than does one reject God command to make the wife happy?  Its an easy decision for me if I was in that position.  Who is in control of my eternal destiny?  God or my wife?  I guess one option would be just divorce the first wife if one had to come down to it.  I don't know if that was an option for Joseph.

That is a real convenient set up.  You have to ask and get the first wife’s permission, but if she says no, you can do it anyway.    Sounds a little self-serving to me. 

[mfbukowski]

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.

Thanks for answering that.

 

I considered it but could not have remained civil.

[Scott Lloyd]

That is a real convenient set up.  You have to ask and get the first wife’s permission, but if she says no, you can do it anyway.    Sounds a little self-serving to me.

It's only self-serving if God is not involved in the decision.

It gets down to one crucial question: Is God in charge or not? If the man's motives are impure, God is not going to sustain his choice, and ultimately, the wife will be vindicated in not giving her consent. If his motives are pure and consistent with the mind of God, the preference of the wife should not be viewed as having supremacy over that.

And bear in mind that in the beginning, scarcely anyone, male or female, wanted to begin the practice of plural marriage. They did it because God decreed it.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to." 

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have." 

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality

and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth.

Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes. 

The First Presidency

=========================================

1947 correspondence between first presidency and Dr.  Lowery Nelson

page 7

========================================

"…if all the spirits were equally faithful in their first estate [but] are placed in such dissimilar circumstances in their second estate… Among the two-thirds who remained [after the Devil was east out], it is highly probable, that, there were many who were not valient [sic] in the war, but whose sins were of such a nature that they could be forgiven...." (The Seer, 1 [April 1853]: 54-56).

=============================================

“Others there were, who may not have rebelled against God [in the war in heaven], and yet were so indifferent in their support of the righteous cause of our Redeemer, that they forfeited certain privileges and powers granted to those who were more valiant for God and correct principle. We have, I think, a demonstration of this in the seed of Ham. The first Pharaoh-patriarch-king of Egypt was a grandson of Ham: ... [Noah] cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood ... Now, why is it that the seed of Ham was cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood? Why is it that his seed could not have right to the Priesthood? Ham's wife was named ‘Egyptus’, which in the Chaldaic signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden; ... and thus from Ham sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land... Was the wife of Ham, as her name signifies, of a race which those who held the Priesthood were forbidden to intermarry? Was she a descendant of Cain, who was cursed for murdering his brother? And was it by Ham marrying her, and she being saved from the flood in the ark, that ‘the race which preserved the curse in the land’ was perpetuated? If so, then I believe that race is the one through which it is ordained those spirits that were not valiant in the great rebellion in heaven should come; who through their indifference or lack of integrity to righteousness, rendered themselves unworthy of the Priesthood and its powers, and hence it is withheld from them to this day” (The Contributor, 6:296-97).

====================================================

And then in 1912 the First presidency renounced it saying there was no authoritative statement.  By that standard we have very few authoritative statements on anything including Elder Christofferson's statement which would not meet this standard.

 

Oh come on

 

Clearly an isolated statement.

[sjdawg]

Obedience to God is higher than obedience to your spouse.  If the first wife does not give permission but God commands, than does one reject God command to make the wife happy?  Its an easy decision for me if I was in that position.  Who is in control of my eternal destiny?  God or my wife?  I guess one option would be just divorce the first wife if one had to come down to it.  I don't know if that was an option for Joseph.

so permission is required unless she won't give it in which case no permission is required.   Nice to know the wife's input is valued.

Edited February 9, 2015 by sjdawg

[DBMormon]

Oh come on

 

Clearly an isolated statement.

which one?

[Buckeye]

Oh come on

 

Clearly an isolated statement.

 

Here's a few more:

 

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we come here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.

 

There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.

 

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, pp. 61, 65-66.

 

 

  

 

Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not a reflection of our worthiness or lack of it in the pre-existent life? ... can we account in any other way for the birth of some of the children of God in darkest Africa, or in flood-ridden China, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Latter-day Saints. There are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, rewarding all according to their deeds....

 

Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. A Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race, seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life, accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn't the mercy of God marvelous? Think of the Negro, cursed as to the Priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa – if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing.... to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the Celestial Kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.

 

Mark E. Peterson, "Race Problems – As They Effect the Church," Address at BYU, August 27, 1954.