Elder Christofferson To Church News: Doctrine Is Not Changing

[DBMormon]

According to the doctrine of Brigham Young, the church no longer even has the priesthood.  Here is his revelation on interracial marriage.

 

 

Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated Feb. 5, 1852,

located in the LDS Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah)

California Boy, Don't you know that we get to pick and choose which revelations we remember and honor and which we choose to block out and pretend they don't impact how nice and clean it all fits.  

 

In all seriousness, It seems to be a real issue when we have Brigham here who seems to be speaking pretty prophetically and yet we ignore it now because we have little choice.  We write Brigham off as Racist and yet we never allow ourselves to wrestle with the implications of that today in our church as if the possibility that similarities existing today is crazy.   If prophets are fallible and past prophets were racist and prejudiced, is it even possible that current leaders harbor similar human failings today?   We really are hesitant to allow ourselves to wrestle with the implications of when a prophet speaks for God and when he doesn't as until he is proven wrong we white knuckle our grasp to his words and when proven wrong we discard it as fast as we can.  

Edited February 10, 2015 by DBMormon

[JLHPROF]

 

According to the doctrine of Brigham Young, the church no longer even has the priesthood.  Here is his revelation on interracial marriage.

 

 

Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; we will sommons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick, and all the elders of Isreal, suppose we summons them to apear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be pertakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the preisthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to desstruction, -- we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood untill that curse be removed.

 

 

Oh well, if we're accepting these kind of teachings as revelation then it appears the Church lost its priesthood long before 1978:

 

 

"plural marriage would end he said when the Church had gon[e] to the Devil or the Priesthood taken from this people - then God would give it to another people."  - Heber C. Kimball,  Feb 1, 1849.

[DBMormon]

Oh well, if we're accepting these kind of teachings as revelation then it appears the Church lost its priesthood long before 1978:

or when a prophet speaks as a prophet is much messier then we feel comfortable with.  I argue for my conclusion rather than the off the cuff one you offer as satire

[KevinG]

Such is the beauty of the Lord's Church in mortal hands.  Not for the sake of the institution but for the sake of the souls who are influenced by it.

 

We learn, we grow, we mature...

 

We get many things right, we miss some, or are delayed in receiving true revelation due to disobedience or false traditions- but then we can repent...

 

We have the multiple protections of Scripture, Prophecy and Individual Revelation...

 

We have the freedom of individual agency balanced with a house of order for protection from anarchy...

 

By getting hung up on a single pet issue or hobby horse, we lose the beauty of the whole vision and go into apostasy with our blinders on.

 

By all accounts Zions March was a temporal disaster, and men declared Joseph a fallen prophet.  Yet others obeyed the call and let the mistakes be on Joseph's head, without rejecting his authority to act as Prophet.  

 

So what was the fate of those who sustained Joseph vs. those who rejected his leadership?  

 

That is the same answer to sustaining mortal, fallible, church leaders in our day.  

Edited February 10, 2015 by KevinG

[DBMormon]

Such is the beauty of the Lord's Church in mortal hands.  Not for the sake of the institution but for the sake of the souls who are influenced by it.

 

We learn, we grow, we mature...

 

We get many things right, we miss some, or are delayed in receiving true revelation due to disobedience or false traditions- but then we can repent...

 

We have the multiple protections of Scripture, Prophecy and Individual Revelation...

 

We have the freedom of individual agency balanced with a house of order for protection from anarchy...

 

By getting hung up on a single pet issue or hobby horse, we lose the beauty of the whole vision and go into apostasy with our blinders on.

 

By all accounts Zions March was a temporal disaster, and men declared Joseph a fallen prophet.  Yet others obeyed the call and let the mistakes be on Joseph's head, without rejecting his authority to act as Prophet.  

 

So what was the fate of those who sustained Joseph vs. those who rejected his leadership?  

 

That is the same answer to sustaining mortal, fallible, church leaders in our day.  

Amen Kevin and this works both ways.  Amen

[CV75]

Should we believe all of them. or just the ones we want to believe?

Not believing and contending are two very different things. And BY did say, “...until that curse be removed,” which is actually rather prophetic, LOL. A fallible person not believing because of the fallibility of the prophet seems to be a poor excuse. I think it can even be hypocritical when used to promote a contending (but just as fallibly constructed) position.

I think it is because of the fallibility of all His children that the Lord commands us not to dispute His servants, however imperfectly they may represent Him. This is not the lord's way to establish right over wrong or resolving problems. Only the spirit of charity and unity among the body of Christ can do that.

[CV75]

Amen Kevin and this works both ways.  Amen

Of course it does--hence the doctrine as laid out in 3 Nephi 11 about not disputing the doctrine.

[JLHPROF]

Not believing and contending are two very different things.

I think it is because of the fallibility of all His children that the Lord commands us not to dispute His servants, however imperfectly they may represent Him.

 

There is a HUGE difference between not disputing and allowing ourselves to drop the ball on what we know is from God.

For example, if (as many people seem to be) we are certain that women should not be ordained to the ecclesiastical priesthood, and the Church issues a proclamation that they can be we either accept blindly, dispute loudly, or follow our own conscience and refuse to sustain that proclamation.

We are all accountable to determine God's will in our lives and follow it.

 

There is not a man on this earth who will enter the kingdom of God on another man's coattails.  God will only look at what we do, or were willing to do in our hearts.

[pogi]

I am saying it is messy.  We each can hold to what we feel is God's truth but knowing that others receive truth that absolutely contradicts our experience.  and Secondly even God himself states that some don't get this experience at all and have not the gift of faith and simply must rely on the words of others.

 

When you say "it is messy", what do you mean by "it"? 

Can truth contradict itself? Does God send contradicting revelations to different people and different churches? Is God a God of confusion, or is man the author of confusion?

You are right, people are given different gifts, but we all have access to the light of Christ.  To some it is given to know that Jesus is the Christ, to others it is given to believe on their words (D&C 46).  Either way, they are being led to the same truth by different means.  James 1:5, Moroni 10, and a multitude of other scriptures speak of the universal promise that if we seek,  we shall find.  We each have a gift of discernment or else there could be no just judgment. 

 

Pogi, does your experience trump others?  Does your spiritual experience have more weight than the others who claim similar experiences but different conclusions.

 

Obviously, we are all at different places on the spiritual spectrum and have different levels of understanding.  We should not pretend that we are all equal in that respect.  Being a Mormon, doesn't mean that our spiritual experience "has more weight" however.  I have no doubt that there are countless others not of our faith who are far more advanced in their spirituality than I am.  I believe that their relationship with God is far more advanced than my own.  I have no doubt about that.  I do have the advantage of a prophet however to help me in my limited experience.  If a person has access to those prophets and their words, with an assurance of their validity, does he not have the advantage of their words?  My spiritual experience does not trump that of others, but the clarity of that experience is enhanced through greater portion of God's word which I have to interpret such experience.  Else, why have prophets?

Edited February 10, 2015 by pogi

[CV75]

There is a HUGE difference between not disputing and allowing ourselves to drop the ball on what we know is from God.

For example, if (as many people seem to be) we are certain that women should not be ordained to the ecclesiastical priesthood, and the Church issues a proclamation that they can be we either accept blindly, dispute loudly, or follow our own conscience and refuse to sustain that proclamation.

We are all accountable to determine God's will in our lives and follow it.

 

There is not a man on this earth who will enter the kingdom of God on another man's coattails.  God will only look at what we do, or were willing to do in our hearts.

Accepting blindly, disputing loudly, and following our own conscience are not the only responses we can choose to have toward current prophetic decisions and teachings—pick any realistic example. The Lord teaches us not to contend or dispute them, which tends to happen when we “walk in the light of [our own] fire, and in the sparks that [we] have kindled.” However, when we intend to follow the Lord’s will and temper that discipleship with charity, we find limitless better options with which to respond and act.

Limiting the number and types of choices with which to receive the Church proclamations is a form of coercion or control that is an obvious outgrowth of the spirit of contention (virtually by definition considering where it comes from), whereas charity is perfectly liberating. Disputation is not His doctrine, but charity is.

[california boy]

Just because Elder McConkie said it was doctrinal (or used the word Doctrine in the title of a book) does not mean it was eternal, doctrinal, or even a good idea.  Granted he did have a lot of good writings and ideas.  Blacks being restricted from the Priesthood, we now know, was neither doctrinal or a good idea.

Elder McConkie stated that blacks would not hold the priesthood untill all the sons of Adam had the chance because he was quoting the prophesy of Brigham Young.  It was doctrine because of what Brigham Young said, not because it was the title of his book.

 

CV75  Not believing and contending are two very different things. And BY did say, “...until that curse be removed,” which is actually rather prophetic, LOL. A fallible person not believing because of the fallibility of the prophet seems to be a poor excuse. I think it can even be hypocritical when used to promote a contending (but just as fallibly constructed) position.

 

 

You hear this a lot in the church.  That someday the blacks were promised they could hold the priesthood by Brigham Yound,  And finally that day was fulfilled in 1978.  But this is a false statement.  The prophesy that the whole priesthood ban was based on specifically said that the decendants of cain would not receive the priesthood UNTIL AFTER all the other sons of Adam held that priesthood.

 

This is what Brigham Young actually said.

 

 

"There are two sublime stipulations that will have to be met before the Negroes will be allowed to possess the Priesthood, even if they are worthy... First, all of Adam's children will have to resurrect and secondly, the seed of Abel must first have an opportunity to possess the Priesthood"

 

 

Blacks were NEVER promised the priesthood until First, all of Adam's children will have to resurrect and secondly, the seed of Abel must first have an opportunity to possess the Priesthood"  This notion that 1978 revelation is a fulfillment of what Brigham Young prophesied actually stands counter to what was doctrine.  When the church started to say that the blacks were promised the priesthood in some future time rather than stating what that time was actually prophesied, it was to prepare the members to accept a new revelation even if it contradicted what Brigham Young actually said.  That part was quickly swepted under the rug and forgotten by the majority of members.

 

Many church leaders have claimed to know the will of God just as sure as what Elder Christofferson stated and have been wrong.   That part is clear.  Now whether Elder Christofferson is right or not will only be tested by time.  One can not know in 2015 if this is God's will or an apostle that once again got it wrong.

[JLHPROF]

Accepting blindly, disputing loudly, and following our own conscience are not the only responses we can choose to have toward current prophetic decisions and teachings—pick any realistic example. The Lord teaches us not to contend or dispute them, which tends to happen when we “walk in the light of [our own] fire, and in the sparks that [we] have kindled.” However, when we intend to follow the Lord’s will and temper that discipleship with charity, we find limitless better options with which to respond and act.

Limiting the number and types of choices with which to receive the Church proclamations is a form of coercion or control that is an obvious outgrowth of the spirit of contention (virtually by definition considering where it comes from), whereas charity is perfectly liberating. Disputation is not His doctrine, but charity is.

 

This fails to address the key issue.  What do we do when we 100% believe the Church is wrong, and not just wrong, but wrong on something that matters to God?

 

Now, we can fill this with quotes about not being led astray, but in the end, if we truly believe something is wrong in the eyes of God we shouldn't support it.  What that looks like in the Church setting is what we are really debating.

I could NOT support the church if they allowed SSM in the temple or ordained women to the priesthood.  So if that happens (and it's a HUGE if) what do I do?

[CV75]

This fails to address the key issue.  What do we do when we 100% believe the Church is wrong, and not just wrong, but wrong on something that matters to God?

 

Now, we can fill this with quotes about not being led astray, but in the end, if we truly believe something is wrong in the eyes of God we shouldn't support it.  What that looks like in the Church setting is what we are really debating.

I could NOT support the church if they allowed SSM in the temple or ordained women to the priesthood.  So if that happens (and it's a HUGE if) what do I do?

I’m not sure how wondering what to do in the event the Church comes up with something you don’t believe is a key issue. “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. …Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” (Matthew 6: 24-34). I think this is good advice for taking one day at a time, in the same spirit as receiving line upon line, precept upon precept.

Someone who believes the Church is in apostasy on one point or another may or may not engage in disputing, so the option to follow 3 Nephi 11 is always open.

[DBMormon]

When you say "it is messy", what do you mean by "it"? 

Can truth contradict itself? Does God send contradicting revelations to different people and different churches? Is God a God of confusion, or is man the author of confusion?

You are right, people are given different gifts, but we all have access to the light of Christ.  To some it is given to know that Jesus is the Christ, to others it is given to believe on their words (D&C 46).  Either way, they are being led to the same truth by different means.  James 1:5, Moroni 10, and a multitude of other scriptures speak of the universal promise that if we seek,  we shall find.  We each have a gift of discernment or else there could be no just judgment. 

 

 

It is messy.  One leaders says blacks are cursed another says they aren't.  Church in the 40's says the curse is Doctrine today they disavow it.   One leader says tithing is on Gross another says it is up to you and God to decide.  One leader says evolution is a heresy and another says he believes in it.  It is messy.  and much of our previous positions outside the bare bone basics have changed and correspond to progressive views in our society.  What is Doctrine today very well may not be Doctrine tomorrow.  Cremation is cautioned against and discouraged, members now can get cremated without any negative stigma, same with birth control, types of intimacy, etc....

 

It is a mess to find a position the Church holds and not have it changed in very real ways and have one leader countering the other (outside the bare bones basics)

[Kevin Christensen]

Historical context matters a great deal. Particularly in pulling out examples that are supposed to be paradigmatic in a general sense.

See Stirling Adams here:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7674

At this stage, anyone quoting Brigham Young without noting the cultural context is which he spoke, and tossing around claims to LDS revelation on something that was rather a longstanding cultural assumption, is not, I think viewing the situation clearly.

And if you think the situation in the early Christian church was radically different in terms of who thought what and why and whether central authories always agreed on everything, go back and read Acts 15 and the debates about circumcision and such.

And there is this notion of "doctrine," yet again, and the notion of what exactly we prefer to build on.

They may have assumed that "doctrine" is unproblematic, but it would seem to be a mistake to ignore the way otherwise ostensibly familiar words like "doctrine" are used in a text upon which one wishes to comment. What is currently meant by "doctrine" includes virtually everything that is taught or believed, and also perhaps whatever supports or explains what is done by Latter-day Saints. But when we look at the way in which the word is used in the Book of Mormon, we are in for a surprise.

The word "doctrine" appears in the Book of Mormon twenty-four times, always with the narrow meaning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. McConkie and Millet are fascinated with what they call "the doctrines within the Book of Mormon" (2:xiii). In the two page preface to the second volume, they mention "doctrines" four different times. Clearly, they assume that the book is full of various "doctrines." But when the word "doctrine" is used affirmatively in the Book of Mormon, it is always singular, though there are "points of doctrine" (1 Nephi 15:14; Alma 41:9; Helaman 11:22-23; 3 Nephi 11:28; 21:6); when plural, the word identifies foolish, vain, and false teachings that deny the gospel--that Jesus is the Christ (see 2 Nephi 28:9, 15; Alma 1:16).

The "doctrine" of Jesus Christ is declared by him to consist of the following: "And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned" (3 Nephi 11:33-34). The Book of Mormon, of course, contains more information about both human and divine things than the fulness of the gospel, which is the doctrine of Jesus Christ. But the additional historical information, as well as the norms, descriptions, emblems, figures, images, tenets, categories, and instructions are never identified as "doctrine." That word is reserved for the core message that Jesus is the Christ--the Messiah, the Redeemer of mankind. Everything else is strictly subordinated to the one "doctrine of Christ," by which we may "know how to come unto Christ and be saved" (see 1 Nephi 15:14), for it is the Redeemer who is the way of salvation, the way, truth, life, light, and so forth--that being the one and only doctrine identified as such in the Book of Mormon. What we need is a commentary on the Book of Mormon--one that begins with an examination of the conception of doctrine found in the text, and not a doctrinal or doctrinaire commentary. When we get clear on exactly what constitutes the doctrine of Jesus Christ, we are able to understand the term "anti-Christ," for they who teach false, vain or foolish "doctrines" are those who deny the doctrine that Jesus is the Christ.

"Doctrine" (usually in the singular, as opposed to the plural form, as in "false doctrines") identifies the gospel understood as faith, repentance, and baptism--how to come unto Christ to be saved. It does not identify the whole range or complex of opinions, speculation or beliefs about divine and human things, or the rites, practices, and traditions that go into the making of a contemporary Mormon; it is, instead, the most primary, elementary, plain teachings of Jesus Christ. Ironically, Doctrinal Commentary rests upon an understanding of doctrine which is foreign to the text upon which it comments. This is obviously innocent, and would be harmless except that the careless use of the word "doctrine" leads McConkie and Millet to pay inordinate attention to the details of beliefs as currently understood, beliefs they think of as crucial doctrines concerning which one must have the right opinion in order to be saved. On this matter it is instructive that after Jesus declared his doctrine to the Nephites (3 Nephi 11:31-39), he added that "whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it as my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them" (3 Nephi 11:40).

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1424&index=12

I've cited this passage before in relation to these kinds of discussions before. Alas, I expect to do so again. But at least, I do have the luxury of standing on a firmer foundation and the comfort and confidence that brings, when the floods and winds and media come to beat on my faith.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[mfbukowski]

I am saying it is messy.  We each can hold to what we feel is God's truth but knowing that others receive truth that absolutely contradicts our experience.  and Secondly even God himself states that some don't get this experience at all and have not the gift of faith and simply must rely on the words of others.

 

Pogi, does your experience trump others?  Does your spiritual experience have more weight than the others who claim similar experiences but different conclusions.

This was not addressed to me obviously, but I would hope between us to use this as an example of the difference between the way you see the world and the way I see it, since we have discussed this before.

 

Your answer presumes that there exists "out there" in a realm we cannot access spiritually "an answer" which is totally correct.  Obviously we cannot access it since we all have different answers.

 

If that is the case, that there is such a realm, one could easily postulate that we now see things "through a glass darkly" and that these answers are at this time unavailable to us, so each of us must attempt to find our own versions of what the spirit reveals, and go with those.  In LDS lingo this is known as "living by faith"

 

Like the blind men and the elephant, we all construct our own versions of what the "elephant" looks like.  Because one feels the trunk and the other feels the leg, that doesn't mean that each individually is "wrong", just that neither of them have the whole picture.

 

That is not fully the way I see these things, but I think that if we could agree on a description like this, we would be much closer to understanding each other.

 

The next step, for me, is to do away with the elephant altogether.  We all get to create our own creatures that no one else has ever seen.  But the elephant would be a step closer.

Edited February 11, 2015 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

It is messy.  One leaders says blacks are cursed another says they aren't.  Church in the 40's says the curse is Doctrine today they disavow it.   One leader says tithing is on Gross another says it is up to you and God to decide.  One leader says evolution is a heresy and another says he believes in it.  It is messy.  and much of our previous positions outside the bare bone basics have changed and correspond to progressive views in our society.  What is Doctrine today very well may not be Doctrine tomorrow.  Cremation is cautioned against and discouraged, members now can get cremated without any negative stigma, same with birth control, types of intimacy, etc....

 

It is a mess to find a position the Church holds and not have it changed in very real ways and have one leader countering the other (outside the bare bones basics)

 

I agree, that it can be confusing at times to know who or what to believe.  Prophets are fallible, we are fallible, and enlightenment is a process. But we cannot conclude that because we get it wrong sometimes, that there is not a right - and that it can be discerned. 

 

Do you believe that prophets do indeed receive revelation - That God speaks to His prophets? Yes. 

Do you believe that prophets are fallible?  Yes.

Do you believe that God contradicts Himself? No.

I am assuming this is how you would answer these questions. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.  

 

Based on these beliefs, If one prophet says that the curse was doctrine, and another prophet says that they were wrong, what can we conclude?  The only conclusion could be that one of them are wrong - not that God changed. 

 

If one prophet says that the doctrines on chastity will "never change" and another prophet later changes it, what can we conclude?  Again, that one of them was wrong - not that God changed.  These conclusion do not infringe upon the above stated beliefs.

 

All this demonstrates is that prophets are fallible.  God is not fallible and his words will endure all cultural changes.  It is up to us to look to His prophets and decide when they are speaking for the Lord.  We will be right sometimes, we will be wrong sometimes.  The key is to search, ponder and pray, and not make hasty conclusion from discussion boards.  We will be held accountable for the light we have been given.  If we do not seek to know, we will be held accountable.  Where we have done our best to know and follow that light in all integrity of spirit, then we will not be held accountable for our imperfect perception.

 

The wrong path would be to conclude that I can pick and choose based on my initial hunch and protest the words of the living prophets without sincere prayer and fasting and sure discernment on the matter, with the justification that "it is messy" and prophets change all the time so I am going to forge my own path without consulting God (not necessarily accusing you of such).  Well, sometimes they are right, so be careful. 

Edited February 11, 2015 by pogi

[CV75]

You hear this a lot in the church.

***

One can not know in 2015 if this is God's will or an apostle that once again got it wrong.

I really wasn't interested in Brigham Young so much as the point I was actually making (I guess my joke detracted from that!): However one wants to frame the changes in doctrine, not believing them and contending over them are still two very different things, and that is what I'm talking about. The doctrine is simply not to dispute along the Gospel path. In the instance of someone not feeling like he knows in 2015 whether a teaching is God's will or just an apostle that has it wrong, there is far better recourse than to dispute. 3 Nephi 11 describes how the doctrine of Christ works.

[CV75]

It is a mess to find a position the Church holds and not have it changed in very real ways and have one leader countering the other (outside the bare bones basics)

I think a mess can be made for oneself when the doctrine of Christ is not applied. Of what one perceives as a mess is entirely subjective; as you point out, for some it is change, for others it is not understanding the context between leaders' statements. But when one applies the doctrine of Christ, the promises are delivered, unless one chooses to make a mess of it, of course!

[mfbukowski]

Historical context matters a great deal. Particularly in pulling out examples that are supposed to be paradigmatic in a general sense.

See Stirling Adams here:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7674

At this stage, anyone quoting Brigham Young without noting the cultural context is which he spoke, and tossing around claims to LDS revelation on something that was rather a longstanding cultural assumption, is not, I think viewing the situation clearly.

And if you think the situation in the early Christian church was radically different in terms of who thought what and why and whether central authories always agreed on everything, go back and read Acts 15 and the debates about circumcision and such.

And there is this notion of "doctrine," yet again, and the notion of what exactly we prefer to build on.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1424&index=12

I've cited this passage before in relation to these kinds of discussions before. Alas, I expect to do so again. But at least, I do have the luxury of standing on a firmer foundation and the comfort and confidence that brings, when the floods and winds and media come to beat on my faith.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

It is amazing to me how some resist understanding these issues this way, because once one comes to this understanding, one's testimony becomes untouchable.

 

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus based his entire understanding of reality on constant change as the only eternal truth, as we might thing of the great Mississippi constantly flowing, swirling and changing in particulars, but eternal in its majesty.   If we could only all see it as he did!

[JLHPROF]

 

Do you believe that prophets do indeed receive revelation - That God speaks to His prophets? Yes. 

Do you believe that prophets are fallible?  Yes.

Do you believe that God contradicts Himself? No.

I am assuming this is how you would answer these questions. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.  

 

Based on these beliefs, If one prophet says that the curse was doctrine, and another prophet says that they were wrong, what can we conclude?  The only conclusion could be that one of them are wrong - not that God changed. 

 

If one prophet says that the doctrines on chastity will "never change" and another prophet later changes it, what can we conclude?  Again, that one of them was wrong - not that God changed.  These conclusion do not infringe upon the above stated beliefs.

 

I LOVE this - it exactly shows my position.  If there is a conflict between prophets in doctrine, it isn't that God changed, it's that one of the prophets was wrong.  Now the challenge comes in determining how we approach the prophetic teaching that is in error.

 

I maintain that it would NOT please God if we went against his revealed will under the guise of following a prophet, be it the current one or a previous one.  I have never believed the "if the prophet tells you to do something and it is wrong and you do it you will be blessed" idea. 

Obviously unless being asked to commit sin we can avoid contending, but at some point I believe that God expects each person to stand on their own testimonies regardless of whether they agree with the actions of the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Do you believe that prophets do indeed receive revelation - That God speaks to His prophets? Yes. 

Do you believe that prophets are fallible?  Yes.

Do you believe that God contradicts Himself? No.

I am assuming this is how you would answer these questions. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.  

 

As I intimated in a prior post, some things are matters of immutable truth and are not merely practices that can be authoritatively changed by some future Church leader off in the unforseeable future.

 

I gave four examples: the declaration that Jesus is the Christ, that He was resurrected for the dead, that He atoned for the sins of mankind and that the priesthood has been restored and in accordance with Doctrine and Covenants 13 is never again to be taken from the earth.

 

I'm saying the divine law of chastity, tied in as it is to the doctrine of the eternal nature of the family unit with a marital covenant between a man and a woman, is among these immutable truths. It won't do to say that a prophet or apostle who affirms the law of chastity is only expressing his opinion and one need only wait until he and others like him die off thus clearing the way for change.

 

You may dispute this if you wish. But if you do, please own up to the fact that you are contradicting the recent unequivocal declaration of a current apostle as quoted in this thread.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

I'm saying the divine law of chastity, tied in as it is to the doctrine of the eternal nature of the family unit with a marital covenant between a man and a woman, is among these immutable truths. It won't do to say that a prophet or apostle who affirms the law of chastity is only expressing his opinion and one need only wait until he and others like him die off thus clearing the way for change.

 

I agree with you.  I believe also that this is an immutable doctrine.  I do have to state that this is only a belief however, as I have not actively pursued a confirmation one way or the other, it just seems right.  I am not one to seek confirmation on things that feel right, only on things that are uncomfortable.  Because of this, I cannot say with clarity if this is opinion or prophecy and will not pretend to do so.  If people have doubts, I would encourage them to take it to the Lord before making accusations that it is only "opinion" and may change.  

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with you.  I believe also that this is an immutable doctrine.  I do have to state that this is only a belief however, as I have not actively pursued a confirmation one way or the other, it just seems right.  I am not one to seek confirmation on things that feel right, only on things that are uncomfortable.  Because of this, I cannot say with clarity if this is opinion or prophecy and will not pretend to do so.  If people have doubts, I would encourage them to take it to the Lord before making accusations that it is only "opinion" and may change.  

Fair enough.

[DBMormon]

This was not addressed to me obviously, but I would hope between us to use this as an example of the difference between the way you see the world and the way I see it, since we have discussed this before.

 

Your answer presumes that there exists "out there" in a realm we cannot access spiritually "an answer" which is totally correct.  Obviously we cannot access it since we all have different answers.

 

If that is the case, that there is such a realm, one could easily postulate that we now see things "through a glass darkly" and that these answers are at this time unavailable to us, so each of us must attempt to find our own versions of what the spirit reveals, and go with those.  In LDS lingo this is known as "living by faith"

 

Like the blind men and the elephant, we all construct our own versions of what the "elephant" looks like.  Because one feels the trunk and the other feels the leg, that doesn't mean that each individually is "wrong", just that neither of them have the whole picture.

 

That is not fully the way I see these things, but I think that if we could agree on a description like this, we would be much closer to understanding each other.

 

The next step, for me, is to do away with the elephant altogether.  We all get to create our own creatures that no one else has ever seen.  But the elephant would be a step closer.

I hear you and agree but Pogi was posing his question from a "there is truth" framework