Elder Christofferson To Church News: Doctrine Is Not Changing

[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.

The set of all those who talk about Mormon history can be divided into two non-intersecting subsets: the honest ones, and those who use "The Seer" as if it were authoritative.

Who is the author of that "Contributor" article?

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Question sources if you want, but don't question others honesty please. - Ares

Edited February 10, 2015 by Ares

[Stone holm]

Interesting.  My principal contact with the community is a relative in his late 60's.  He indicates that SSM is having an impact on the gay community which is not appreciated by the rest of the community, namely they are adopting children and have started emphasizing "family values" and requiring that gay events be kid friendly, etc. etc.   I suppose that once they have acceptance that they will then join the Christian Right in fighting for "traditional monogamous marriage", etc. against polygamists, etc.

[mfbukowski]

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.

No, you are missing the point, and in fact proving mine.

 

In all your cases, you are talking about a minority opinion which was supported or rejected-  by the majority because the minority was considered either "right" or "wrong".

 

Prop 8 proves my point.  We were in the minority against a majority culture and the majority culture won.  The message of prophets grows stronger only when it reflects a majority culture.  Popular majority opinion is against racism- NOW.  The Confederates were fighting against history- they held a minority opinion which had already been "voted down" by the majority culture and indeed they had been defeated in a war which proved that opinion was a losing proposition.

 

Earlier in history of course slavery was popularly approved, and so it remained as a reprehensible practice for centuries.

 

Just look at history to see a long list of groups which no longer exist because their own ideas did not fit the majority culture.  Look at Christians in Iraq for a contemporary example.

[Stone holm]

On the other hand, Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived in relative peace for an extended period after the Crusades finally sputtered out, but then things changed.  What is "reprehensible" is in fact a cultural artifact, that I agree with.  An example being that pediphilia appears to have been quite acceptable in Helenistic culture and in certain other cultures, until impacted by a cultural change.  Certain civilizations saw no issue with bare breasted women until the Christian missionaries arrived.  It is sometimes hard to sort out the cultural artifact from the religious artifact.  But I agree that SSM is structurally a problem for Mormonism, as a result I don't see our Church ever accepting it or embracing it in the Temple -- unless the Church becomes something other than the one we believe in now.  That was not true of the discrimination against the blacks, but it is true about SSM.   The question is whether when we start legislating religious standards, does that necessarily make for an increased spirituality -- my response is no, in fact the opposite is likely to occur.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Stone holm

[pogi]

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".

 

It is completely consistent with church teachings, scripture and my experience.  Revelation for the church comes through the channel of the prophet.  This has always been consistent.  We have been taught to not blindly follow the prophets - that's where personal revelation comes in (in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses - the prophets witness & mine at least).  If the word of man changes, it did not originate from God.  That's all there is to it. 

 

I must believe that I can count on God's word, that it is constant and unchanging, or there is no basis for me to trust Him more than I trust anybody else.  Does he not see the end from the beginning?  Does he not know that he will triumph over Lucifer, or is that subject to change as well?  You see, there must be constancy with God or all faith and trust is gone.  It is not God who is inconsistent in his word, it is man who is inconsistent in speaking in behalf of God.  The original meaning of "truth" was "constancy".  I believe that this constancy is God. He is the truth and changeth not. 

 

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1:38)"

Edited February 9, 2015 by pogi

[CV75]

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.

It doesn’t conflict because John 7:17 is hardly an invitation to dispute, but an invitation to know, just as 3 Nephi 11 (through 12:2) is, where the method to know the doctrine is the doctrine, which is clearly not to dispute it. Edited February 9, 2015 by CV75

[DBMormon]

The set of all those who talk about Mormon history can be divided into two non-intersecting subsets: the honest ones, and those who use "The Seer" as if it were authoritative.

Who is the author of that "Contributor" article?

Regards,

Pahoran

So now I am dishonest?  I am done taking you seriously as long as you argument is a us vs them with them being called unintelligent and dishonest.  

[mfbukowski]

It is completely consistent with church teachings, scripture and my experience.  Revelation for the church comes through the channel of the prophet.  This has always been consistent.  We have been taught to not blindly follow the prophets - that's where personal revelation comes in (in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses - the prophets witness & mine at least).  If the word of man changes, it did not originate from God.  That's all there is to it. 

 

I must believe that I can count on God's word, that it is constant and unchanging, or there is no basis for me to trust Him more than I trust anybody else.  Does he not see the end from the beginning?  Does he not know that he will triumph over Lucifer, or is that subject to change as well?  You see, there must be constancy with God or all faith and trust is gone.  It is not God who is inconsistent in his word, it is man who is inconsistent in speaking in behalf of God.  The original meaning of "truth" was "constancy".  I believe that this constancy is God. He is the truth and changeth not. 

 

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1:38)"

I understand your point, but you must realize that the Lord did not hold the pen and write those words.

 

Yes I believe in and affirm the mantle of authority, but humans speak in cultural contexts.  To not understand that turns prophets into the objects of idolatry.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I understand your point, but you must realize that the Lord did not hold the pen and write those words.

 

Yes I believe in and affirm the mantle of authority, but humans speak in cultural contexts.  To not understand that turns prophets into the objects of idolatry.

MFB- Thanks for this very concise and powerful statement.

[mfbukowski]

MFB- Thanks for this very concise and powerful statement.

Thanks for the kind words!

[The Nehor]

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.

Then logically we should start burning sinners and the Millenium will be imminent.

[Pahoran]

DBMormon wrote:

 

So now I am dishonest? I am done taking you seriously as long as you argument is a us vs them with them being called unintelligent and dishonest.

You say that as if you suppose I'm picking on you in particular. What I wrote has been my position vis-à-vis "The Seer" for a number of years now, and I've never had the slightest reason to resile from it.

"The Seer" is a repudiated work; repudiated by its author, no less.

Now, are you going to tell me the name of the author of that "Contributor" article, or don't you know?

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited February 9, 2015 by Pahoran

[pogi]

I understand your point, but you must realize that the Lord did not hold the pen and write those words.

 

If it was indeed the revealed word of God, he may as well have written it.  Either His voice is "the same" as his servants or it is not.  It is truth or lie.  It is from God or from man. We cannot confuse the mistakes of man with the revealed word of God, or all trust in God is lost.

 

Yes I believe in and affirm the mantle of authority, but humans speak in cultural contexts.  To not understand that turns prophets into the objects of idolatry.

 

 

I agree that the word of God is often delivered in cultural contexts (Isaiah for example), for our understanding (or lack thereof).  However, it doesn't matter how radically different our culture is today from the time of Isaiah, it will all come to pass despite the changing culture. 

 

If Elder Christofferson said that the doctrine will "never" change under the direction of the spirit and under the mantle of a prophet, then he is right and always will be.  If Elder Christofferson was speaking non-prophetically however, then all bets are off.  That's where personal revelation comes into play. 

 

I don't believe that what I have said is a form of idolatry.  To follow blindly after the prophets is ignorance, to follow their word after being prompted by the Lord is righteousness, to consider them infallible is next to idolatry, to worship them is idolatry. 

 

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.

 

 

I don't believe that the Lord's words through his prophets are dependent upon our support or defense.  If it came from God, it will happen with or without our help or lack thereof, and with or without the changing culture. 

[mfbukowski]

Then logically we should start burning sinners and the Millenium will be imminent.

Good idea but not too soon,  I don't like the heat.

[mfbukowski]

If it was indeed the revealed word of God, he may as well have written it.  Either His voice is "the same" as his servants or it is not.  It is truth or lie.  It is from God or from man. We cannot confuse the mistakes of man with the revealed word of God, or all trust in God is lost.

Uh, no. 

 

In God I trust.  All others get total skepticism until they prove themselves.  When God tells me they are OK, they are OK with me until God tells me something else.

 

If you don't follow your own heart, you've got nothing.

 

Your quote is true because God told me to accept this church as his word.  It could change tomorrow.  Not likely, but possible.  If the Q of 12 starts spouting material that God does not verify, I am out of here.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I don't accept that it is a matter of Elder Christofferson "binding future leaders as to Church doctrine." Rather, I see him as declaring and teaching known truth that is immutable and will remain so throughout all eternity.

Furthermore, saying he is trying to do unauthorized binding of future Church leaders is quite an accusation to make, be it stated or implied.

DBMormon once remarked that Elder Christofferson "chooses his words carefully." I agree with that, although not in the context that DBMormon meant it. In effect, DBMormon was suggesting that Elder Christofferson was equivocating. That notion has quite clearly turned out to be false.

His most recent statement quoted in this thread is what it is. It is scarcely conceivable to me that a man like Elder Christofferson, with his legal background, his propensity to choose his words carefully, and with the ongoing inspiration and spiritual gifts to which he is entitled as an a apostle of the Lord and a prophet seer and revelator, would declare that a doctrine won't ever change unless he was absolutely certain and that knowledge was given to him from above.

Edited to add:

Is it "binding future Church leaders" to declare that Jesus is the Christ, that He rose from the dead and that He atoned for the sins of mankind? Or that the priesthood will never again be taken from the earth (see D&C 13)?

Edited February 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

Uh, no. 

 

In God I trust.  All others get total skepticism until they prove themselves.  When God tells me they are OK, they are OK with me until God tells me something else.

 

If you don't follow your own heart, you've got nothing.

 

Your quote is true because God told me to accept this church as his word.  It could change tomorrow.  Not likely, but possible.  If the Q of 12 starts spouting material that God does not verify, I am out of here.

 

I don't disagree with any of this, except for the "uh, no" part   oh, and the last paragraph. 

 

Perhaps I am not being understood.  The reason you follow your heart is because you trust God.  You trust that he will not lie to you.  If he will not lie to you, then you can trust that he will not lie to his prophet.  The problem is that prophets are fallible.  They sometimes say things that really were not from God.  Therefore, we should not trust them like we trust God.  But we should look to them and follow their words as they speak to our heart, because when they are speaking the word of the Lord, you can count on it as if it was God himself speaking it. 

 

Your quote is true because God told me to accept this church as his word.  It could change tomorrow.  Not likely, but possible.  If the Q of 12 starts spouting material that God does not verify, I am out of here.

 

 

Because God tells me to follow something, it doesn't necessarily make it true.  It could be a way to truth.  If God inspired a man to become Catholic for example, it doesn't make the words of all the popes true, nor does it make it the true and living church, but it makes it a way to truth.  So, there is a difference between God guiding your ever evolving life and God revealing unchanging truth.  The key is that we have to be in-tune to recognize if a prophet is speaking as a prophet.  If we cannot count on the revealed word of God through a prophet, what is the point of a prophet if what he says when moved by the spirit cannot be trusted?  What is the point of God in that case if he is speaking lies to the prophets? 

 

Saying that something "will never change" cannot be true today and change tomorrow with the culture.  If it changes, then it was never true and never came from God. 

Edited February 10, 2015 by pogi

[california boy]

The truth of the matter is, no one really knows where this is all headed.  While some of you may be as sure as night follows day that the churches position on SSM will NEVER change, you are only drawing that conclusion based on existing conditions and current church positions.  It seems reasonable to assume that God does not want SSM at this time.  I am ok with that.  And as I and others have said repeatedly, it may stay like that forever.  I am ok with that as well.  This isn't an argument against current or even church policy.  Maybe it is speculation on what could possibly change in the future in ways that we don't now understand or believe.

 

But take a deep breath for a moment and see if there is another path that this might all take.  And this is just speculation along with all of the other speculation on this thread.  But what happens if SSM really does work out well.  What happens if living within the bonds of marriage really is better for gays than being celibate.  What if it is more healthy and they prosper spiritually from being in committed relationships.  What happens if it creates a more stable family life for any children that might be involved in those families.   What happens if SSM has no effect whatsoever on the choices straight couples make.  What if members continue to strive for temple weddings, and gay marriage has nothing to do with that decision.  In short, what if SSM has no downside.  What if it is a preferred relationship for gay couples over shacking up or living a life of celibacy??  Does the church stick to current policy even when it is apparent that it is not working well for gay members?  And it appears that allowing members to marry brings them closer to Christ and the gospel?  Allows them to continue to participate in the church and still be able to have human companionship?

 

I know this is a big what if.  I know there are some on this board that will focus more on taking what I am speculating on piece by piece to prove that "will never happen".  Gay marriage will always be evil.  Gay marriage will never be better than being celibate.  And if you have the need to have that position, I understand.  But what I would rather have happen is for you to speculate on what direction the church could or would then take if gay marriage proves to be better than a celibate life?  

[DBMormon]

DBMormon wrote:

 

You say that as if you suppose I'm picking on you in particular. W

Not particularly or specifically but you are lumping me in with that group generally......  right?

You said 

 

The set of all those who talk about Mormon history can be divided into two non-intersecting subsets: the honest ones, and those who use "The Seer" as if it were authoritative.

 

 

I shared that source hence via your statement I am one of the dishonest ones.    

Do you see why it would be hard to make a serious discussion with you if you simply paint (which you have done twice now) those who disagree with you as having some intellectual inferiority or moral flaw?

 

Let me know when your ready to be accountable for what you say personally about another and then I will attempt to answer your question.

Edited February 10, 2015 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

In terms of the seer it was an official periodical of the Church (1853-1854).  That said leaders years later (1865) renounced it as not sanctioned.  So acknowledge by the 1865 and after standard it was not Doctrinal.

 

That said I shared multiple sources and the two from the First Presidency are sufficient to show that they believed the race ban was Doctrinally tied to performance/behavior in the pre-mortal life

 

The Contributor was a LDS magazine

https://www.lds.org/church/news/online-collection-of-historical-church-magazines-expanding?lang=eng

The Contributor (1879–1896) was intended “to represent the Mutual Improvement Associations, and to furnish a publication of peculiar interest to their members and to the mature youth of our people.”

 

It was seen as quasi official

[pogi]

But what I would rather have happen is for you to speculate on what direction the church could or would then take if gay marriage proves to be better than a celibate life?  

 

If it is sin, then it cannot be better than a celibate life in the grand scheme of things.  Perhaps you are not taking eternal happiness into consideration.  Every sacrifice now will be worth it.

 

It would be wrong for any of us to judge that a homosexual who marries has no shot at salvation, we don't know the mind and mercy of the Lord and have been commanded to not judge in such matters.  What we do know is that your reward will be that much greater in the next life for your righteous sacrifice in this life. 

[california boy]

If it is sin, then it cannot be better than a celibate life in the grand scheme of things.  Perhaps you are not taking eternal happiness into consideration.  Every sacrifice now will be worth it.

 

It would be wrong for any of us to judge that a homosexual who marries has no shot at salvation, we don't know the mind and mercy of the Lord and have been commanded to not judge in such matters.  What we do know is that your reward will be that much greater in the next life for your righteous sacrifice in this life. 

 

Interesting thought.  Can something still be a sin even if it brings one closer to God?  We all die in sin.  The main goal seems to be becoming more Christlike in the process.  For most of us, marriage is an important part of learning to be more Christlike.  Or is SSM such an evil sin that no matter what else a person does in life, he could never become more Christlike if he is in a gay marriage.

[DBMormon]

If it is sin, then it cannot be better than a celibate life in the grand scheme of things.  Perhaps you are not taking eternal happiness into consideration.  Every sacrifice now will be worth it.

 

It would be wrong for any of us to judge that a homosexual who marries has no shot at salvation, we don't know the mind and mercy of the Lord and have been commanded to not judge in such matters.  What we do know is that your reward will be that much greater in the next life for your righteous sacrifice in this life. 

what about when leaders in earlier times said interracial marriage was sin and that teaching was Doctrine?  Why did doctrinal sin then become acceptable today?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In terms of the seer it was an official periodical of the Church (1853-1854).  That said leaders years later (1865) renounced it as not sanctioned.  So acknowledge by the 1865 and after standard it was not Doctrinal.

 

It was never official hence the renunciation. Stop trying to make it something it is not.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Contributor was a LDS magazine

https://www.lds.org/church/news/online-collection-of-historical-church-magazines-expanding?lang=eng

The Contributor (1879–1896) was intended “to represent the Mutual Improvement Associations, and to furnish a publication of peculiar interest to their members and to the mature youth of our people.”

 

It was seen as quasi official

IOW, it is also not official. Is this how you "Strengthening Feeble Knees and Lifting Hands that Hang Down" by quoting non doctrinal works all the time and straining at gnats and thinking that SSM marriage will one day happen in the church contrary to what is plainly stated?

Edited February 10, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram