An Evening With A General Authority 2015

[haggard]

Doctrine hasn't changed

Really? The bretheren consistently change and evolve doctrine. As a young man I was taught in young men's group that Joseph had nothing to do with polygamy, it was all Brigham and they did it because no men were around to marry the single women.....LIE.  I was also taught by my bishop and father that blacks couldn't receive the priesthood because of what they had done in the pre-existance...LIE...that doctrine has changed too. The temple ceremony has change multiple times, garments have changed too. In fact the bretheren are taking suggestions for chaning temple garments again as of today. Here is the link. https://lds.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_1OdWPwwFV9o1qM5&cid=garmentfeedback

 

I guess doctrinal changes are all part of the "restoration"?

[bluebell]

 

To say people that leave are dismissing or tossing aside the larger issues is not a fair assessment.   Breaking down the trivial issues often lead you to apply the same critical thinking to the larger issues.

 

I don't think it's the questions or applying the same critical thinking that Elder Holland is talking about.  I think he's talking about the conclusions that are reached after supposedly (and i don't mean that in an insulting way) having received a witness from the Holy Ghost that the gospel of Jesus Christ as the LDS church teaches and applies it is true.

 

I think he's wondering how such questions can lead someone to deny an experience they previously completely trusted.  

 

For example, i have had moments and times in my life where I have doubted the existence of God and have had some serious questions.  But whenever those doubts and questions come up they don't have much power to sway me from my belief that God does exist because of a very specific spiritual experience that I had which confirmed that.  

[Duncan]

Can you name a single apostle who has claimed to have a face-to-face interview with the Lord?

 

So you're saying that "special witness" is a title that has no real meaning whatsoever?  Interesting argument. Clearly this is not what we're taught to believe about apostles.  If that's the truth of the matter then a paradigm shift is warranted.

 

 

yeah, I and others can name lots who have had visitations from Christ

Edited February 12, 2015 by Duncan

[Duncan]

Really? The bretheren consistently change and evolve doctrine. As a young man I was taught in young men's group that Joseph had nothing to do with polygamy, it was all Brigham and they did it because no men were around to marry the single women.....LIE.  I was also taught by my bishop and father that blacks couldn't receive the priesthood because of what they had done in the pre-existance...LIE...that doctrine has changed too. The temple ceremony has change multiple times, garments have changed too. In fact the bretheren are taking suggestions for chaning temple garments again as of today. Here is the link. https://lds.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_1OdWPwwFV9o1qM5&cid=garmentfeedback

 

I guess doctrinal changes are all part of the "restoration"?

 

 

I don't think what you are talking qualifies as doctrinal changes. Sounds like ideas and 'The Lord extending the saints understanding' that has changed. 

[KevinG]

It seems to me that a lot of people who lose their faith go from black and white thinking to more black and white thinking. They become as dogmatic about liberal ideology as they were about Mormonism.

 

Ah yes!  "I used to support it unconditionally, but I'm more open minded now and that I oppose it unconditionally."

 

I've witnessed people here flip from dogmatic and stubborn apologists, and re-branding as dogmatic and stubborn anti-Mormons.  The consistency of their position was that no matter their position, they were always right.  Some of them are quite well known in Mormon related discussion forums.

[wtrdog]

well, he did say it qualifies as a revelation not necessarily as a revelation-or a guide. Maybe it's both though a revelation and as a guide. I have no idea how it came about or that the age change was a revelation(maybe it was) but it's something that's new anyways

 

how do you know it was changed by the correlation committee and not himself?

 

 

They replaced the word "revelation" with guide, period.  There is no "it's both" here.

 

I know the change was made by the correlation committee because I understand how the correlation process works.  But, Packer is part of that committee...  It's not a secret.  I've spoken with people who have worked at the COB and been directly involved in this type of thing.  This has also been widely discussed online among major blogs like Times and Seasons.  His talk was censored in exactly the same way that all talks are, like that controversy last year where the prayer was bleeped because it referred to the women's session of general conference.  Talks are censored all the time, most changes simply go unnoticed.  For obvious reasons the church makes an effort to be quiet about such things and not draw more attention.  Talks have to go through and be approved by correlation beforehand and then they are read from a teleprompter.  Some of this is to keep things within the proper time frame, but it's also to check content.  People don't always stay on script the way they should, or something like the word "revelation" might slip past the editor doing the initial review.  And I'm sure quite a bit of latitude is given to the apostles.  It would have to be a pretty substantial and obvious error for an editor to call out an apostle I'm sure.  The editor probably thought The Proclamation was a revelation.  Packer is president of Q12 after all.  But then in the post-review process before publication to the Ensign a larger number of reviewers went over the thing and somebody probably raised the question, "Is this a revelation?"  The church has said numerous times that revelations are canonized.  So if this is a revelation, why hasn't it been added to the D&C?  Question gets put to the committee, which officially responds as a body that "no, it's not" revelation. 

 

This is a bureaucratic process of review.

[DBMormon]

Really? The bretheren consistently change and evolve doctrine. As a young man I was taught in young men's group that Joseph had nothing to do with polygamy, it was all Brigham and they did it because no men were around to marry the single women.....LIE.  I was also taught by my bishop and father that blacks couldn't receive the priesthood because of what they had done in the pre-existance...LIE...that doctrine has changed too. The temple ceremony has change multiple times, garments have changed too. In fact the bretheren are taking suggestions for chaning temple garments again as of today. Here is the link. https://lds.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_1OdWPwwFV9o1qM5&cid=garmentfeedback

 

I guess doctrinal changes are all part of the "restoration"?

Some of what your saying was never Doctrine other stances were stated as such and certainly have changed under the premise that while we called them doctrine they really were never doctrine to begin with.

[wtrdog]

Really? The bretheren consistently change and evolve doctrine. As a young man I was taught in young men's group that Joseph had nothing to do with polygamy, it was all Brigham and they did it because no men were around to marry the single women.....LIE.  I was also taught by my bishop and father that blacks couldn't receive the priesthood because of what they had done in the pre-existance...LIE...that doctrine has changed too. The temple ceremony has change multiple times, garments have changed too. In fact the bretheren are taking suggestions for chaning temple garments again as of today. Here is the link. https://lds.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_1OdWPwwFV9o1qM5&cid=garmentfeedback

 

I guess doctrinal changes are all part of the "restoration"?

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/03/principles?lang=eng

 

 

 

Procedures, programs, the administrative policies, even some patterns of organization are subject to change. We are quite free, indeed, quite obliged to alter them from time to time. But the principles, the doctrines, never change.

 

Here's the problem, doctrine isn't supposed to change.  Doctrine is supposed to be based on truth, the immutable variety.  Unfortunately, often times what we call "doctrine" turns out to be "false doctrine."  So, yes, doctrine never changes, but how do we know today's doctrine isn't tomorrow's false doctrine?  Ultimately, what IS the doctrine?  We don't know, or, we don't know perfectly.  There is a confidence interval and we turn out to be wrong quite often.

[KevinG]

Doctrine never changes, but it is folly to believe we have already received pure doctrine in its fullness and never make errors in our understanding of it.

 

Two guides:

 

LDS Articles of Faith 9:  We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

 

Doctrine and Covenants 93:  19 I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness.

20 For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.

 

 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

 

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

[Duncan]

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/03/principles?lang=eng

 

 

Here's the problem, doctrine isn't supposed to change.  Doctrine is supposed to be based on truth, the immutable variety.  Unfortunately, often times what we call "doctrine" turns out to be "false doctrine."  So, yes, doctrine never changes, but how do we know today's doctrine isn't tomorrow's false doctrine?  Ultimately, what IS the doctrine?  We don't know, or, we don't know perfectly.  There is a confidence interval and we turn out to be wrong quite often.

 

 

The gospel being the way back to God the father, having faith in Christ, repenting, being baptized by priesthood authority, following the holy Ghost and enduring to the end hasn't changed. That's the Gospel, that hasn't changed. What has changed is ideas about these things, how to follow the Holy Ghost, who is the Holy Ghost etc. Doctrine changing would be like The Holy Ghost is done away with, he never existed. False doctrine, to me, is false ideas about something that lead us away from true doctrine like the Holy Ghost is a duck and eats marshmallows and so their is no point to listening to him, because he sounds crazy. Another example is it's true that WW1 was fought between Canada, England, France and the US, against Germany, Turkey etc. But it would be false to say that El Salvador saved the day with their star ships

[rongo]

It's a sad day when you realise the church is being being led by tradition and cultural values and not revelation. They are well-meaning men who receive no more divine inspiration than the Pope or the Dalai Lama.

Does this mean that you've had a breakthrough lately and are now firmly on the side of disbelief? I had thought from your posts that you were struggling with testimony issues, but your posts in this thread seem to indicate that there has been a sea change.

 

You're not still in a bishopric, are you?

[haggard]

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/03/principles?lang=eng

 

 

Here's the problem, doctrine isn't supposed to change.  Doctrine is supposed to be based on truth, the immutable variety.  Unfortunately, often times what we call "doctrine" turns out to be "false doctrine."  So, yes, doctrine never changes, but how do we know today's doctrine isn't tomorrow's false doctrine?  Ultimately, what IS the doctrine?  We don't know, or, we don't know perfectly.  There is a confidence interval and we turn out to be wrong quite often.

Great question, how do we KNOW today's doctrine isn't tomorrow's false doctrine? I guess that is my point. It seems to me the current "prophet" trumps prior ones. So we got rid of polygamy (at least in the mainstream LDS faith) but was that doctrine or not? It is still in D and c 132 so where does that fit? And for the blacks and the priesthood, I don't understand how that would not be considered a doctrinal change, were all those prophets wrong until 1976?

[VideoGameJunkie]

The internet with all it's information can be very damaging to members and so can traumatic moments in people's lives that really test their faith. All I can suggest is to build your testimony on rock, not sand.

[Duncan]

Great question, how do we KNOW today's doctrine isn't tomorrow's false doctrine? I guess that is my point. It seems to me the current "prophet" trumps prior ones. So we got rid of polygamy (at least in the mainstream LDS faith) but was that doctrine or not? It is still in D and c 132 so where does that fit? And for the blacks and the priesthood, I don't understand how that would not be considered a doctrinal change, were all those prophets wrong until 1976?

 

1978

[haggard]

1978, thanks Duncan, I stand corrected.

[KevinG]

The subset of what is doctrine vs. what has been called doctrine is probably very small.  However, You are pretty safe going with the standard works and the latest General Conference talks for what is current doctrine and practice.

 

Now there remains the sticky issue of correct understanding of doctrine...

 

But again this is all theoretical and hypothetical.

 

Can anyone actually show a modern example of someone being disciplined for having an opinion where they were not contradicting the basic church doctrines, or leading people away from the church over controversies?

[haggard]

The internet with all it's information can be very damaging to members and so can traumatic moments in people's lives that really test their faith. All I can suggest is to build your testimony on rock, not sand.

What would you call "rock" to base truth on?  Unfortunately when discussing these issues of they all seem to be shifting sands.

[KevinG]

What would you call "rock" to base truth on?  Unfortunately when discussing these issues of they all seem to be shifting sands.

 

Christ's atonement would be a good starting place.

 

http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/articles-of-faith 

[The Nehor]

Excellent job supporting my thesis.  So your argument is that they should "lie for the Lord" because all the sheeple are too weak minded to take care of themselves?  Like Cypher, you want to be plugged back into the Matrix?  A work of fraud is perfectly ok, so long as it's pious?  I'm absolutely baffled by your thinking.  What ever happened to Choose The Right and let the consequences follow?  If the revelation my leaders receive does not have a higher confidence interval than the Pope, then yes, absolutely freaking yes, I want to know that.  Are you kidding?  Your salvation is at stake, man.  Take a step back and really try to consider things without any bias whatsoever.  

 

Engaging in wild speculation, what if, just what if, there is a God, afterlife, etc., that's all true, and we are here to be tested, but it's a rigged game and the correct answer is to reject all organized religion and become an atheist?  How funny would it be to die, be releaved and ecstatic that you still exist, walk up to the judgement seat and have God say, "Good to see you back.  I know that was hard and sorry for putting you through that, but it was necessary.  You'll get a nice break before the next phase.  I wish I had good news for you, but, unfortunately, you failed the test.  You were supposed to reject religion, not become an idol-worshipping zealot.  I really did try to make it obvious for you.  All of the clues I gave you screamed 'not true,' and this was the point of the test.  We've observed that when placed in a body people tend to become overcome by body feedback known as 'emotion.'  In the interest of selfishness and self-preservation, people cling to the most absurd of beliefs as a coping mechanism.  This then leads to dogma and the mistreatment of others who don't subscribe to those same beliefs.  People become tribal and succumb to peer pressure.  Our goal was for you to put aside those things and feel the Spirit, and to learn to discern right and wrong without having to be instructed in every little thing..."  Hopefully you can appreciate the point I'm trying to make here.

I do not appreciate your point and find you moronic in misunderstanding mine.

As I pointed out in my post I said that I do not believe the assertion that the prophets and apostles get no revelation and are just making it up as they go. I then said that if I was a cynical skeptic and did not believe the prophets and apostles received revelations that the prescription they gave would destroy the church. The demanded admission would also destroy the church if it is what it was meant to be. Of course if the church were a fraud the sooner it dies the better but for better or worse that is not the case.

If I did come before God and he tried to argue that I was supposed to disbelieve I would ask him what the hell was up with all that revelation I got. If he countered that it came from my brain then I would argue that I must be God, the source of all truth and provide a follow-up to Satan's coup. Mine would be more successful.

As to the people of earth being sheeple too weak-minded to handle all the truth that is pretty much church doctrine. Or did you think all that talk about how foolish man is only applies to the past. While I do not believe God lies he does withhold truths that would destroy many.

[omni]

A long overdue change in age on a policy is revelation? Ok. I guess when we set the bar that low we can say safely, many things are lead by revelation then. After all, when companies change policy and it benefits the company, no doubt, God inspired it, even if that change was illegal or deceptive.

This reminds me of when Pres. Hinckley announced the construction of small temples. I kept hearing others mention how inspired he was to come up with that. While I kept thinking, does it require inspiration from God to know that if you build smaller inexpensive temples you can build more of them?

[KevinG]

If I did come before God and he tried to argue that I was supposed to disbelieve I would ask him what the hell was up with all that revelation I got. If he countered that it came from my brain then I would argue that I must be God, the source of all truth and provide a follow-up to Satan's coup. Mine would be more successful.

 

As a convert from Methodism to Mormonism, I have been asked, "since you joined the Mormon Church due to what you felt was revelation or greater light, what would you do if another group came along that offered even greater light than that?"  My response is always an honest - "I would join them in a heartbeat."

 

So far after 28 years of Mormonism I haven't seen a better offer yet.  Either that or God decided he kind of likes me hanging around with the Saints - so He hasn't given me another set of instructions.

[teddyaware]

Really? The bretheren consistently change and evolve doctrine. As a young man I was taught in young men's group that Joseph had nothing to do with polygamy, it was all Brigham and they did it because no men were around to marry the single women.....LIE.  I was also taught by my bishop and father that blacks couldn't receive the priesthood because of what they had done in the pre-existance...LIE...that doctrine has changed too. The temple ceremony has change multiple times, garments have changed too. In fact the bretheren are taking suggestions for chaning temple garments again as of today. Here is the link. https://lds.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_1OdWPwwFV9o1qM5&cid=garmentfeedback

 

I guess doctrinal changes are all part of the "restoration"?

 

1) Almost from the very beginning, it has been common knowledge in the Church that the prophet Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage. So the lie you say you were told by your young men's leader has nothing to do with the Church at large. Painting the entire Church with the broad brush claim of systemic lying about Joseph Smith's polygamy, all because of the alleged lie of your young men's leader, is as unfair as it is ridiculous. Anger clouds reason.

 

2) You need to understand that it was very logical for pre-Official Declaration 2 LDS apologists to presume blacks were being denied the priesthood because of their lack of faithfulness in the preexistence. Why? because Alma 13 testifies that the faithful in the premortal world are rewarded for their faithfulness by being made recipients of the priesthood power while in mortality. So the logical flip-side of this same Book of Mormon doctrine is that the priesthood would be denied to those on earth who were less valiant in the premortal world. So then, the pre-1978 LDS apologists should be charitably cut some slack because in the light of the Book of Mormon their presumptions of premortal unworthiness were perfectly logical and consistent with LDS scripture. But the fact is that since 1978 black male members HAVE BEEN able to hold the priesthood, so the perfectly logical and reasonable pre-1978 application of Alma 13 to the priesthood ban has since that time been cast into some doubt.

 

But remember, in spite of what some wishful thinkers want to believe, the Church hasn't walked away from the legitimacy of the priesthood ban and for the need of a special revelation to end the ban. So aside from the once-presumed logical and scripturally presumed reason for the institution of the priesthood ban being called into question, nothing else has changed with regard to the ban. In its recent official statement on this subject, the Church stands by the need for a special revelation to end the ban. There would have been no need for a revelation to end the priesthood ban if there were no legitimate ban in the first place. And it's important to understand that the leaders who were present at the time the 1978 revelation was given have most solemnly testified that they did indeed receive a powerful revelation on that happy day -- a revelation as great as the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

 

The spiritually immature will always gag and choke on the meatier doctrines and principles of the Restore Gospel. Even so, of late the Church has made an attempt to masticate that Gospel meat for easier digestion. But in spite of the Church's best efforts, some are still choking. It will ever be so.

Edited February 12, 2015 by teddyaware

[canard78]

Does this mean that you've had a breakthrough lately and are now firmly on the side of disbelief? I had thought from your posts that you were struggling with testimony issues, but your posts in this thread seem to indicate that there has been a sea change.

You're not still in a bishopric, are you?

I was in a branch presidency/the branch president 4-5 years ago. My most recent calling was Branch Mission Leader (that was... interesting....)

I don't want to go off on a tangent too much, but in relation to the topic of the thread, I have reached some fairly resolved conclusions (as far as is possible on intangible matters of faith). The issues that Elder Holland says are trivial are really, really not. I spent several years and 1000s of hours studying and pondering these questions. In the end I feel comfortable with the conclusions I've reached. I still have a personal set of beliefs. I'd probably describe myself as a universalist with Mormon origins.

[Avatar4321]

The LDS church leadership should simply acknowledge that the church is being being led by tradition and cultural values and not revelation. They are well-meaning men who receive no more divine inspiration than the Pope or the Dalai Lama.

So we should lie to make you happy?

[Avatar4321]

I don't think that is a fair comparison, The Church isn't going to change into something entirely new and start selling Jelly beans and saddle soap. Maybe too we can't handle more revelation like say the Priesthood ban removal, if we can't get members to read scriptures, for example I don't think the Lord is going to give us more scriptures

I tend to agree. If we aren't going to study the scriptures we have then why should we expect more of the written word?

I've been studying president Benson about flooding the earth with the Book of Mormon. He indicated we haven't been taking it seriously and are still under condemnation for not using it as we should. He also said he longed for the day we would and suggested it would not occur in his own life.

Maybe we should use this opportunity to do so. Let's flood our life with the Book of Mormon.