Elder Christofferson To Church News: Doctrine Is Not Changing

[CV75]

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

Whenever Christ describes His doctrine, He prefaces it with His Gospel (that He accomplished the Father’s will). His doctrine of course is what we are to know and do to also accomplish the Father’s will through Him. While He brought forth the Gospel Himself, He brings forth His doctrine trough His servants the apostles.

There can be a tendency to minimize the doctrine (or the points one doesn’t like) because it is “only” an appendage to the Gospel. However, all things exist “only” because of the Christ; we are “only” children because of our rebirth in Him. It is a given that He is the center of everything, but everything tied to Him is His.

1 Corinthians 12 teaches about not deprecating the appendages. In this case, the points of doctrine, while appendages, are very much a part of the body of the doctrine of Christ.

This is where I think two points of the doctrine of Christ are getting overlooked: only a certain few are sent to administer the points of doctrine (meaning all but 12 have no authority to do so), and none are to dispute or contend against these points. Since He took some time on that latter point, His doctrine is clearly not to criticize, call for or develop doctrine outside the councils of the Church.

When appealing to the doctrine of Christ, even as summarized in these three chapters in the Book of Mormon, all the points must be given due attention. I see no support for disputing the teachings of the Lord's servants or inventing alternatives.

[Buckeye]

To answer the original post, Elder Christofferson, together with the FP and Q12, holds the keys to determine church doctrine today. If he says that our doctrine on SSM or chastity will not change then I have every reason to believe that will be the case during the time of his service. All my experience with him suggests that he is a sincere, honest, and clear-spoken individual.

 

However, none of that changes the fact that neither Elder Christofferson, nor any of our other current leaders, has authority to bind future leaders as to church doctrine. There are many limitations to their authority. These include: space (their authority is confined to this world), scope (they do not have authority to resurrect), and time (their authority ends with their death). So unless someone thinks Elder Christofferson is immortal, we have to take his statement as a sincere expression regarding what he believes, but not an authoritative statement that binds his successors.

[DBMormon]

To answer the original post, Elder Christofferson, together with the FP and Q12, holds the keys to determine church doctrine today. If he says that our doctrine on SSM or chastity will not change then I have every reason to believe that will be the case during the time of his service. All my experience with him suggests that he is a sincere, honest, and clear-spoken individual.

 

However, none of that changes the fact that neither Elder Christofferson, nor any of our other current leaders, has authority to bind future leaders as to church doctrine. There are many limitations to their authority. These include: space (their authority is confined to this world), scope (they do not have authority to resurrect), and time (their authority ends with their death). So unless someone thinks Elder Christofferson is immortal, we have to take his statement as a sincere expression regarding what he believes, but not an authoritative statement that binds his successors.

loved that

[Mystery Meat]

To answer the original post, Elder Christofferson, together with the FP and Q12, holds the keys to determine church doctrine today. If he says that our doctrine on SSM or chastity will not change then I have every reason to believe that will be the case during the time of his service. All my experience with him suggests that he is a sincere, honest, and clear-spoken individual.

 

However, none of that changes the fact that neither Elder Christofferson, nor any of our other current leaders, has authority to bind future leaders as to church doctrine. There are many limitations to their authority. These include: space (their authority is confined to this world), scope (they do not have authority to resurrect), and time (their authority ends with their death). So unless someone thinks Elder Christofferson is immortal, we have to take his statement as a sincere expression regarding what he believes, but not an authoritative statement that binds his successors.

 

So here is something I have wondered about. I have mentioned before that I don't think this can change (SSM), but putting all of that aside and that you are right and the Church's doctrine on SSM doesn't change in Elder Christofferson's lifetime, at what point does it do more harm than good to change the stance?

 

In other words, let's say he lives to be 95, or another 25 years. In 25 years will it be too little too late to make a change? What if it doesn't change in Elder Bednar's lifetime? What if he lives to be 95? How long does the Church have to act before it loses the PR battle completely (if it already hasn't)? I only ask this question, as there seems to be an underlying thought by many that the Church changes due to outside pressure on these types of issues. But if the Church misses out on any PR gains it would have gotten by embracing SSM well before those currently serving in the 12 pass on, but a subsequent endorsement of SSM 30 years from now alienates many of the faithful, is it worth it at that point?

 

Practically speaking of course.

[Mystery Meat]

Another question that I am curious to know:

 

For those of you who are politically inclined (believe it or not, this includes me) to support SSM, how long would you remain an active member of the Church with the Church's current doctrine on SSM remaining unchanged? At some point would it just get too embarrassing for you?

 

Just curious.

[pogi]

To answer the original post, Elder Christofferson, together with the FP and Q12, holds the keys to determine church doctrine today. If he says that our doctrine on SSM or chastity will not change then I have every reason to believe that will be the case during the time of his service. All my experience with him suggests that he is a sincere, honest, and clear-spoken individual.

 

However, none of that changes the fact that neither Elder Christofferson, nor any of our other current leaders, has authority to bind future leaders as to church doctrine. There are many limitations to their authority. These include: space (their authority is confined to this world), scope (they do not have authority to resurrect), and time (their authority ends with their death). So unless someone thinks Elder Christofferson is immortal, we have to take his statement as a sincere expression regarding what he believes, but not an authoritative statement that binds his successors.

 

The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever (Isaiah 40:.

 

See also Matt 5:18

Psalm 111:8

Matt 24:35

 

If Elder Christofferson was speaking in authority as a prophet as moved upon by the holy spirit - so it is, and so it will always be.  If he was speaking as a man, then yes, it is subject to change.  The only way to know for sure is through personal revelation. 

[Buckeye]

So here is something I have wondered about. I have mentioned before that I don't think this can change (SSM), but putting all of that aside and that you are right and the Church's doctrine on SSM doesn't change in Elder Christofferson's lifetime, at what point does it do more harm than good to change the stance?

 

In other words, let's say he lives to be 95, or another 25 years. In 25 years will it be too little too late to make a change? What if it doesn't change in Elder Bednar's lifetime? What if he lives to be 95? How long does the Church have to act before it loses the PR battle completely (if it already hasn't)? I only ask this question, as there seems to be an underlying thought by many that the Church changes due to outside pressure on these types of issues. But if the Church misses out on any PR gains it would have gotten by embracing SSM well before those currently serving in the 12 pass on, but a subsequent endorsement of SSM 30 years from now alienates many of the faithful, is it worth it at that point?

 

Practically speaking of course.

 

Don't forget that Elder Christofferson and the other leaders can always change their mind. Elder McConkie and Elder Peterson certainly did in 1978 - with Elder McConkie saying (my paraphrase) "forget everything I ever said on the subject." Now, I can't predict that Elder Christofferson will have a similar change of view, but if anyone could I imagine it would be him. Because of his gay brother, Elder Christofferson has seen the outcome of gay unions for many years. He's in an excellent place to judge whether his brother's choices have led to good or evil.

 

As for outside pressure, I don't believe the church changes course in order to appease "the world," but it does change when the world's choices turn out to produce good fruit and the members of the church begin to support such a change. That's what happened in 1978 - by then there was ample evidence that blacks were not really cursed - they were just as able as whites, Hispanics, and other races. There was also internal needs to change the doctrine because it was impeding the work in Brazil and other countries. If SSM turns out to produce good families, and if the rising generation of youth largely embrace those good families, then I could see church leaders reconsidering the issue - again, not to appease the world, but because the world turned out to be correct and the church wants to provide more good that is desired by its members.

 

 

 

Another question that I am curious to know:

 

For those of you who are politically inclined (believe it or not, this includes me) to support SSM, how long would you remain an active member of the Church with the Church's current doctrine on SSM remaining unchanged? At some point would it just get too embarrassing for you?

 

Just curious.

 

I'm in so long as there is no where better for me. Many members stayed with the church despite disagreements over the racial ban. There will be many of us who do likewise on this issue.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever (Isaiah 40: .

 

See also Matt 5:18

Psalm 111:8

Matt 24:35

 

If Elder Christofferson was speaking in authority as a prophet as moved upon by the holy spirit - so it is, and so it will always be.  If he was speaking as a man, then yes, it is subject to change.  The only way to know for sure is through personal revelation. 

 

In that case, I can 100% say that I do not know that Elder Christofferson is correct, as the spirit has not confirmed his prediction to me. In my experience, the spirit speaks to the moment - it encourages, comforts, chastises, and directs. However, so far for me, it has never set a bound saying "this will never ever change." The journey continues ...

[CV75]

not an authoritative statement that binds his successors.

But we are bound by the doctrine of Christ not to dispute it, and I think this point easily gets lost.

[Rob Osborn]

What can I say? I am saddened that we as a society even have to debate such subjects. Its proof of our slippery sliding into Babylon...

[DBMormon]

Another question that I am curious to know:

 

For those of you who are politically inclined (believe it or not, this includes me) to support SSM, how long would you remain an active member of the Church with the Church's current doctrine on SSM remaining unchanged? At some point would it just get too embarrassing for you?

 

Just curious.

I am saddened by this issue and those hurt by it.  That said I don't see myself leaving over it.  If one of my 4 children were gay and the Church was causing them great harm might be a different story, otherwise I would prefer to stay in and be a voice for the reasons why this Doctrine makes me uncomfortable.

[pogi]

Another question that I am curious to know:

 

For those of you who are politically inclined (believe it or not, this includes me) to support SSM, how long would you remain an active member of the Church with the Church's current doctrine on SSM remaining unchanged? At some point would it just get too embarrassing for you?

 

Just curious.

 

I am also inclined to support SSM politically, I have to take the church's political stance on the hope that it is inspired by the Lord.  I believe the doctrine that eternal marriage is between man and woman. I will never be embarrassed to reject SSM as an eternal covenant.  I will never be embarrassed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but I may have difficulty from time to time with church policy and political practice.  That is normal and to be expected.  I don't believe that my political sentiment will ever outweigh my sentiment of the gospel and testimony.  Being a member can be uncomfortable at times (perhaps because of my own blindness), but it will always be better than the alternative life without the gospel. 

[Buckeye]

But we are bound by the doctrine of Christ not to dispute it, and I think this point easily gets lost.

 

I'm not quite sure what you are saying, but it seems to conflict with Christ's instruction that we test His word: "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (Jn. 7:17).

 

Our church has had lots of doctrines over the years. Some have born good fruit and remain unchanged (e.g., atonement, repentance, forgiveness). Others have had mixed results, have been altered to some degree, and continue to bear good fruit (tithing, temple ordinances, missionary service). Others have born bad fruit and have thankfully been rejected (e.g., curse of cain, premortal actions determine mortal blessings, heterosexual marriage cures homosexuality). I'm not sure where SSM will fall, but I'm hopeful that the church will hold to and embrace all good that is shown through testing the word.

[Mars]

I am also inclined to support SSM politically, I have to take the church's political stance on the hope that it is inspired by the Lord.  I believe the doctrine that eternal marriage is between man and woman. I will never be embarrassed to reject SSM as an eternal covenant.  I will never be embarrassed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but I may have difficulty from time to time with church policy and political practice.  That is normal and to be expected.  I don't believe that my political sentiment will ever outweigh my sentiment of the gospel and testimony.  Being a member can be uncomfortable at times (perhaps because of my own blindness), but it will always be better than the alternative life without the gospel. 

 

This is precisely how I feel.

[KevinG]

Another question that I am curious to know:

 

For those of you who are politically inclined (believe it or not, this includes me) to support SSM, how long would you remain an active member of the Church with the Church's current doctrine on SSM remaining unchanged? At some point would it just get too embarrassing for you?

 

Just curious.

 

Being politically inclined to support others agency to believe any darn thing they want (short of victimizing the innocent) my very traditional personal beliefs about sexuality and marriage don't weigh into it.  I am not embarrassed by the early Saints polygyny.  I am not embarrassed by my personal religious beliefs that line up with the Prophets and Apostles.  Much in the same way I'm not embarrassed to politely turn down an offered cup of coffee in a professional setting.  You see it is simply not my cup of tea.

 

“To mind your own business incorporates the whole duty of man.” - Brigham Young

[teddyaware]

I'm not quite sure what you are saying, but it seems to conflict with Christ's instruction that we test His word: "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (Jn. 7:17).

 

Our church has had lots of doctrines over the years. Some have born good fruit and remain unchanged (e.g., atonement, repentance, forgiveness). Others have had mixed results, have been altered to some degree, and continue to bear good fruit (tithing, temple ordinances, missionary service). Others have born bad fruit and have thankfully been rejected (e.g., curse of cain, premortal actions determine mortal blessings, heterosexual marriage cures homosexuality). I'm not sure where SSM will fall, but I'm hopeful that the church will hold to and embrace all good that is shown through testing the word.

 

Three points:

 

1) How in the world could a Latter-day Saint think the curse that came upon Cain and His posterity wasn't God's will when the fact that the curse was ordained by God is confirmed so many times in the scriptures? Do you believe the curse God placed upon the Lamanites (as recorded in the Book of Mormon) also bore bad fruit and should be rejected by today's LDS Church as counterproductive and inauthentic?

 

2) How could a knowledgeable Latter-day Saint get the idea that premortal actions don't play a significant role in the blessings received in mortality when the scriptures are full of the doctrine? Were not one third of the host of heaven cast out as a consequence of their actions in the the premortal world? Were not the righteous premortal noble and great spirits Abraham saw in his vision chosen by God to be the leaders of His kingdom in mortality? And did not Alma also teach (Alma 13) that God's earthly priesthood leaders were chosen before the foundation of the world on account of their righteous conduct "in the first place?" You cause me to wonder if there will also be resurrected men and women in the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms who will protest it's unfair they were consigned to those kingdoms because of their actions in mortality.

 

3) Since when was aversion therapy for homosexuality ever considered to be a scripturally-supported doctrine of the Church?

Edited February 9, 2015 by teddyaware

[Buckeye]

Three points:

 

1) How in the world could a Latter-day Saint think the curse that came upon Cain and His posterity wasn't God's will when the fact that the curse was ordained by God is confirmed so many times in the scriptures? Do you believe the curse God placed upon the Lamanites (as recorded in the Book of Mormon) also bore bad fruit and should be rejected by today's LDS Church as counterproductive and inauthentic?

 

2) How could a knowledgeable Latter-day Saint get the idea that premortal actions don't play a significant role in the blessings received in mortality when the scriptures are full of the doctrine? Were not one third of the host of heaven cast out as a consequence of their actions in the the premortal world? Were not the righteous premortal noble and great spirits Abraham saw in his vision chosen by God to be the leaders of His kingdom in mortality? And did not Alma also teach (Alma 13) that God's earthly priesthood leaders were chosen before the foundation of the world on account of their righteous conduct "in the first place?" You cause me to wonder if there will also be resurrected men and women in the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms who will protest it's unfair they were consigned to those kingdoms because of their actions in mortality.

 

3) Since when was aversion therapy for homosexuality ever considered to be a scripturally-supported doctrine of the Church?

 

1) The "curse of cain" I was referencing is the LDS doctrine that the curse extends down to modern times, applies to all persons of African dissent, and is a justification of denying such persons priesthood and temple blessings. It was an LDS doctrine through at least 1978 and has only recently been renounced by the church.

 

2) The "premortal actions" doctrine I was referencing is the LDS doctrine that persons of African dissent were not sufficiently valiant in the preexistence to warrant priesthood and temple blessings in this life. This was also LDS doctrine through at least 1978 and has only recently been renounced by the church. On the broader point, it used to be quite common for church leaders to express that certain mortal blessings were a result of premortal decisions - for example, being born into a free country. Such teachings have largely been dropped by the church proper, though they circulate in some gospel doctrine classes. We no longer claim that our youth were generals in the war in heaven or that someone born into an impoverished and war-torn country bears some responsibility for that predicament because of choices made before this life.

 

3) There are dozens of existing threads discussing doctrine vs. policy vs. whatever other term one wants to use to say "the church never really taught that." The truth of the matter, though, is that for many years the church did actively teach members that entering into a heterosexual marriage would cause SSA to dissipate and end. That teaching/doctrine/policy/whatever has been officially dropped, thankfully, because it is wrong.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Guess I am not surprised to see that some people cannot endure sound doctrine.  Esp when laid out in such a precise matter.

 

"Marriage is between a man and a women and will never change" That really means in 10 years there will be gay marriage in the church.

 

I guess nothing will suffice to appease those that clearly don't get it.

[Buckeye]

Guess I am not surprised to see that some people cannot endure sound doctrine.  Esp when laid out in such a precise matter.

 

"Marriage is between a man and a women and will never change" That really means in 10 years there will be gay marriage in the church.

 

I guess nothing will suffice to appease those that clearly don't get it.

 

I'm not saying it will, only that is can. I'm actually espousing the rather-fundamental doctrine that the church is governed by continual revelation and thus not bound by prior scripture or doctrine. I'm struggling to see why that is so heretical. Except that it undercuts the ability of some to say "give up hope ... things will never ever change."

[ERayR]

Another question that I am curious to know:

 

For those of you who are politically inclined (believe it or not, this includes me) to support SSM, how long would you remain an active member of the Church with the Church's current doctrine on SSM remaining unchanged? At some point would it just get too embarrassing for you?

 

Just curious.

 

Doctrine should never be subject to the whims of political correctness.  My answer - forever.

[mfbukowski]

If Elder Christofferson was speaking in authority as a prophet as moved upon by the holy spirit - so it is, and so it will always be.  If he was speaking as a man, then yes, it is subject to change.  The only way to know for sure is through personal revelation. 

But that's inconsistent.  Either you are affirming personal revelation as the only course to unchanging truth or following the prophets "moved on by the spirit".

 

The reality is that it all changes.  Truth is not constant and is defined by personal needs and what the church needs to do.  That does not SOUND like the politically correct answer for a TBM as I am, but in the final analysis it reflects church history and practice individually and publicly.

 

Survival value is the basis for it all, personally and institutionally because institutions are collections of people who also need to survive.  You start burning witches, and I guarantee witchyness will become unpopular and disappear.

 

You can't convince others you are right if you are dead and so are your ideas.  It is a simple fact of life.  It doesn't matter if those ideas came directly from God himself- humans have the agency to ignore God and decide what they want to believe anyway.

 

Just a little reality check here.

[mfbukowski]

Guess I am not surprised to see that some people cannot endure sound doctrine.  Esp when laid out in such a precise matter.

 

"Marriage is between a man and a women and will never change" That really means in 10 years there will be gay marriage in the church.

 

I guess nothing will suffice to appease those that clearly don't get it.

I agree fully with you.  It's just that I know that when push comes to shove, all bets are off.

 

For all we know there might be another restoration after this culture gets reduced back to the stone age.  But male and female are eternal principles which have always been worshiped as yin and yang, opposition in all things, day and night, good and evil.  They are one of the polarities of life without which we cannot survive as humans.  At its most basic, it is human survival.  The gay lifestyle can only survive in a culture which supports these behaviors.  THAT is an eternal fact of life.

 

How long such a culture will exist is another question, and how long the church will reflect our present culture is another one.

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

Edited February 9, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Doctrine should never be subject to the whims of political correctness.  My answer - forever.

What should be and what is are often different- I pray that you are right.

[Stone holm]

mfbukowski, quote function doesn't work on this computer.  Have to disagree with your comment about burning witches.  It can actually have the opposite impact.  I think Prop 8 pretty much testifies to that.  But you can even see it in the Book of Mormon, you start burning prophets and their message grows stronger.  Pope bans a book it becomes an instant best seller.  Former Confederates lynch enough blacks, the Government finally says enough is enough and sends in the National Guard.

[mfbukowski]

On one hand we believe in personal revelation.

 

On the other we believe in following the brethren.  That creates a natural tension in the church which is unavoidable.

 

When enough members think they have had a "personal revelation" that the gay lifestyle is ok, things might well change.  It could happen.  Those who disagree with that change must stand up and support the brethren, or it could happen.  It is not an easy position to take in this culture.

 

We shall see.  That's all I know for sure about this. It WILL go one way or the other.