On pressuring Church leaders to change doctrine

[Russell C McGregor]

14 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Oh, my, well if the LDS Bible Dictionary disagrees with the scriptures, what is a good Mormon to do?

 Not that you'd be in a position to know anything about what a good Mormon does; but given that the LDS Bible Dictionary clearly does not disagree with the Scriptures, your question is moot.

14 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And what should I think when, as your example plainly shows, it is the LDS Bible Dictionary that is the one wresting the scriptures?

No, it "plainly shows" no such thing.

 

[busybee]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

No..that would never happen.  But I would think that they would do this for Mom and Dad.  I know I would.

Why would grandparents go against the wishes of the parents of their grandchildren?? I have a son who has no desire to have his children blessed. I HAVE to respect his wishes. I wouldn't dream of pressuring my son into having his children blessed. As much as I desire to see my grandchildren being raised in the church it is not my prerogative to do anything in this regard other than pray and be an example in hope for the day when that will be the case. I know of no parent who would, after asking once and being refused, make an issue of having their grandchild blessed against the wishes of the parents. It would be counterproductive in maintaining a good relationship.

[Bobbieaware]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

For my part it comes from my personal and very clear memory.

I grew up in Utah (Salt Lake County) in the 50s and 60s and came of age in the early 70s. I was active in the Church growing up and paid earnest attention to how it was perceived in public.

The protests against the Church over this issue are very vivid in my memory, including students wearing black arm bands at athletic contests involving BYU, throwing molotov cocktails onto the basketball floor, etc.

By 1978, I had gone on and returned from a mission and had been a journalism student at BYU for years. Journalists, even student ones, tend to pay attention to current news events.

You can discount my eyewitness if you like, but it is what it is.

I can substantiate your experience: On the day the revelation was announced, in addition to my great delight, I clearly remember thinking to myself that the critics of the Church wouldn't be able to say the ban was lifted in response to pressure for change on the leaders of the Church. This was my thinking because since the early 70's I had observed the priesthood ban had pretty much become a non-issue. So when the ban was lifted I was totally thunderstruck that it came when it did because there was no reason to suspect a momentous change was about to be announced to the world. 

[consiglieri]

53 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 Not that you'd be in a position to know anything about what a good Mormon does; but given that the LDS Bible Dictionary clearly does not disagree with the Scriptures, your question is moot.

No, it "plainly shows" no such thing.

 

 

How many inconsistent ideas can you hold in your head at one time?

I think you are on verge of some kind of world record, Russell.

[consiglieri]

21 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I can substantiate your experience: On the day the revelation was announced, in addition to my great delight, I clearly remember thinking to myself that the critics of the Church wouldn't be able to say the ban was lifted in response to pressure for change on the leaders of the Church. This was my thinking because since the early 70's I had observed the priesthood ban had pretty much become a non-issue. So when the ban was lifted I was totally thunderstruck that it came when it did because there was no reason to suspect a momentous change was about to be announced to the world. 

Not if you weren't following legal cases challenging the tax exempt status of other universities. 

Or not interested in Stanford refusing to play BYU.

Or not aware a temple was about to open in Brazil later that year.

But other than that, no reason whatsoever.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Like which ones? Mark E. Peterson? Delbert L. Stapley? They are two apostles who have been criticized in the past (and not entirely without warrant) for making racist statements.

They were both alive in 1978.

Harold B. Lee comes to mind.

History shows he was the one who rushed in at the final moment and prevented the ban from being lifted in 1969.

If memory serves.

Edited January 14, 2016 by consiglieri

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Not if you weren't following legal cases challenging the tax exempt status of other universities. 

Or not interested in Stanford refusing to play BYU.

Or not aware a temple was about to open in Brazil later that year.

But other than that, no reason whatsoever.

The tax-exempt thing was a pretty arcane observation. For the vast majority of the public, friend or foe, it was not even on the radar.

The Stanford University matter was residue from years earlier, when the black armbands were being worn and the molotov cocktails being tossed. It was simply a policy from that period that had never been rescinded.

The temple being built in Brazil had nothing to do with protests or public pressure in the United States. It was, in fact, a happy event for the Church. The inclusion on your list strikes me as irrelevant.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 

How many inconsistent ideas can you hold in your head at one time?

I think you are on verge of some kind of world record, Russell.

Nothing inconsistent about Russell's reasoning.

What's inconsistent is your position vis-à-vis Church teaching. We don't pray to get God to change His mind. That's not a logically coherent notion for one who believes in the omniscience of God.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Bobbieaware]

7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Not if you weren't following legal cases challenging the tax exempt status of other universities. 

Or not interested in Stanford refusing to play BYU.

Or not aware a temple was about to open in Brazil later that year.

But other than that, no reason whatsoever.

I said the ban had PRETTY MUCH become a non-issue, not that every single soul on planet earth was sanguine about the 130+ year old ban.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Oops.  Sorry.  Re-read your post and now it says something completely different than what I thought it did a minute ago. Need to brush up on my reading skills.

No problem, I am rather convoluted today.

[Scott Lloyd]

So did anybody here actually click on the link in the OP and read the piece by Greg Smith? That, after all, is the impetus for starting this thread.

 

Edited January 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Harold B. Lee comes to mind.

History shows he was the one who rushed in at the final moment and prevented the ban from being lifted in 1969.

If memory serves.

If my memory serves, he reminded the quorum that if the change were to come about, it ought to be driven by divine revelation, a thought that the others apparently hadn't considered carefully enough, given the ease with which they backed off on the matter.

Fast forward to 1978. President Kimball, as prophet, seer, revelator, key holder, approached the matter properly, which was to go to the Lord in fervent and humble prayer and await His direction. What followed was immediate unanimity among the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

Of course, I wasn't there on the inside to observe events first hand. But then, neither were you.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So did anybody here actually click on the link in the OP and read the piece by Greg Smith? That, after all, is the impetus for starting this thread.

At least you provided us something we can actually read intelligently and critically and not some 20-hour-long podcast that can only be listened to passively. Thank you!

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

At least you provided us something we can actually read intelligently and critically and not some 20-hour-long podcast that can only be listened to passively. Thank you!

My pleasure!

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

 

How many inconsistent ideas can you hold in your head at one time?

I think you are on verge of some kind of world record, Russell.

Y'know Consig, it occurs to me that if you could actually show any inconsistency, you would do it.

That you resort to these kinds of snarky drive-bys suggests that you can't.

[JLHPROF]

Sorry, I've been kind of busy and haven't had time to read all 6 pages.

But anyone that doesn't think member agitation has resulted in the change of things once considered doctrinal just isn't paying attention.

You can start with most of the temple ceremony, the garments, and go from there.

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Not if you weren't following legal cases challenging the tax exempt status of other universities.

If you had a clue, you'd know that priesthood is an ecclesiastical construct, and that a university is not a church.

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Or not interested in Stanford refusing to play BYU.

Wow, what amazing public pressure that was! That one out of hundreds of schools decided to take its bat and ball and go home!

Remind me: when did that happen, again?

Wasn't it 1969?

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Or not aware a temple was about to open in Brazil later that year.

But other than that, no reason whatsoever.

Let's see.

Who decides where and when to build temples, again?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sorry, I've been kind of busy and haven't had time to read all 6 pages.

But anyone that doesn't think member agitation has resulted in the change of things once considered doctrinal just isn't paying attention.

You can start with most of the temple ceremony, the garments, and go from there.

So remind me when it was that that the public protests, nasty public vilification of Church leaders and threats of mass apostasy occurred over the style of temple garments and content of the temple ceremony. 

Edited January 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Zakuska]

4 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 

Complete, utter distortion and misrepresentation.

The actual dialogue went something like this:

U.S. Government: We've dissolved you as an organisation and seized all your property, including your temples, so you can't practice polygamy any more anyway.

LDS Church: Ok.

The claim that it was done to secure statehood for Utah is false.

It is also standard anti-Mormon boilerplate.

 

Glad to know the church is anti-mormon and uses "anti-mormon boilerplate" when it notes that one of the things the church had to do to secure statehood for Utah was to give up polygamy.

Quote

Quest for Statehood Continues

Issuing the Manifesto¹⁴was the important first step toward achieving reconciliation between the Latter-day Saints and the United States government. A new era of understanding began. Chief Justice Charles Zane, heretofore a harsh opponent of polygamy, adopted a more lenient attitude toward those brought before his court. Hence the raids against men with more than one wife came to an end. It was also generally understood that husbands would not be required to reject their wives or their children. After much petitioning, U.S. President Benjamin Harrison granted a limited pardon to all Mormon men who had lived in compliance with the anti-polygamy laws since 1890, and in September 1894, President Grover Cleveland issued a more general amnesty. In 1893 Congress passed a law allowing the escheated property to return to the Church. The quest for Utah statehood was also renewed. Before Congress would allow this to happen, however, it required the Church to relinquish participation in politics. The Church’s party—the People’s Party—would have to be disbanded, and Utah’s citizens would have to align themselves with national political parties. The First Presidency publicly supported all these actions. Accordingly, in June 1891 the People’s Party was formally dissolved and, after some contention, the anti-Mormon Liberal Party disbanded two years later.

Establishing the national Democratic and Republican parties in Utah proved exceedingly difficult. Traditionally the Saints had leaned toward the Democratic Party because the Republicans, who had been in power most of the time since 1861, had promoted and enforced the anti-polygamy legislation. Furthermore, the Democratic-appointed officials of 1885–89 had been more lenient with the Saints. Considering the political tendency of Church members and the fact that most nonmembers in Utah were Republican oriented, the First Presidency wanted to avoid the Democrats becoming another Church party.

Meetings were held with stake presidents and bishops where they were instructed to encourage more Latter-day Saints to vote Republican. This would demonstrate to national party leaders that a viable two-party system could exist in Utah. Local leaders, however, were also urged to use good sense and caution in their encouragement. Church members who were known to have strong Democratic convictions were not asked to switch parties, but those whose commitment was not particularly strong were encouraged to change. This method was effective, and by 1892 the Republican Party was strong in Utah politics.

Delicate negotiations continued for Utah statehood in both houses of Congress. Of importance to most congressmen was an assurance that the Church was sincere about stopping the practice of plural marriage and staying out of the political process. By means of astute political moves by lobbyists, primarily non-Mormon Isaac Trumbo and Bishop Hiram B. Clawson, the Utah Enabling Act was finally passed in July 1894. Throughout the rest of 1894 and in 1895, Utahns, both in and out of the Church, cooperated to produce a state constitution that achieved Congress’s acceptance. The constitution specifically prohibited plural marriage and ensured the complete separation of church and state.

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-thirty-four-an-era-of-reconciliation?lang=eng

Edited January 14, 2016 by Zakuska

[JLHPROF]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So remind me when it was that that the public protests, nasty public vilification of Church leaders and threats of mass apostasy occurred over the style of temple garments and content of the temple ceremony.

Is that what I said?

I said that what Joseph F. Smith taught was unchangeable eternal doctrine concerning the garments prior to his death was set aside by his successor because members were complaining and even choosing not to wear them.

I said that what had remained basically unchanged (with just a few cosmetic and procedural alterations) about the temple for 148 years and was considered vital got a complete overhaul under President Benson (or more precisely his counselors) after surveying members about the ceremony and removing anything that made them "uncomfortable".  Further doctrinal changes claimed to be merely procedural but definitely doctrinal, were added in 2005 (if I remember my year right), again because members claimed they were "uncomfortable".

Protests don't have to be public and vilification doesn't have to be present for members to force change in doctrine.  Threats of apostasy are perhaps a different issue.

Either way, regardless of whether the changes are correct or not, members brought about doctrinal change in the Church and have on many occasions.  So have individual GA's.  "Official Church Doctrine" doesn't exist in a 15 man vacuum until revealed to the membership at large.  It has been influenced and continues to be influenced by many factors.  Some divine, some less so.

Edited January 14, 2016 by JLHPROF

[6EQUJ5]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I  Further doctrinal changes claimed to be merely procedural but definitely doctrinal, were added in 2005 (if I remember my year right), again because members claimed they were "uncomfortable".

You have the date right.  I was a temple worker in Mesa at the time.

You are wrong about doctrinal changes being introduced.  It was merely a change in the logistics of the ordinance.

[JLHPROF]

54 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

You have the date right.  I was a temple worker in Mesa at the time.

You are wrong about doctrinal changes being introduced.  It was merely a change in the logistics of the ordinance.

Yes, that's what people tell me.  Funny how things are considered doctrine under the prophets that keep them and not doctrine under the prophets that change them.  Every doctrine is only doctrine until someone decides it isn't.

 

[6EQUJ5]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, that's what people tell me.  Funny how things are considered doctrine under the prophets that keep them and not doctrine under the prophets that change them.  Every doctrine is only doctrine until someone decides it isn't.

 

I don't follow.

There was a minor procedural change.  No new doctrine was taught or introduced.  If my memory is correct only 3-5 words were changed to match the new logistics.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I don't follow.

There was a minor procedural change.  No new doctrine was taught or introduced.  If my memory is correct only 3-5 words were changed to match the new logistics.

Apparently JLHPROF has arrogated to himself the privilege of declaring for the Church what is and isn't doctrine. 

On this subject see the treatment here on FairMormon Answers.

An excerpt:
 

Quote

 

People sometimes confuse the ordinance of the endowment with the presentation of the endowment. The presentation has undergone many changes since the time of Joseph Smith as it is adjusted to meet the needs of a modern and ever changing membership.

Joseph Smith restored the endowment ordinance, but the method of presentation of the ordinance is adapted to fit the needs of the times. There would be no point in having continuing revelation, a founding idea of our faith, if we are not permitted to advance and meet new needs. God’s directives and how He deals with His people may vary according to His people’s understanding and needs. God doesn’t tell everyone to build an ark and wait for a flood. Changes sometimes occur as a result of God dealing with His children according to their changing circumstances.

 

 

Edited January 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I don't follow.

There was a minor procedural change.  No new doctrine was taught or introduced.  If my memory is correct only 3-5 words were changed to match the new logistics.

Doctrinal scripture Genesis 3:21 - used to be represented in the ceremony, now is not.  The correct relationship is that the Lord bestow the garment upon the man Adam.  Not that the man Adam present the garment before the Lord to be blessed.

The Adam/Lord relationship is represented all through the temple.  It is in fact the entire point of the ceremony.  It is the eternally exoteric representation of the eternally esoteric meanings.

But I feel like I am derailing the thread, and we are missing the point.  The point is, members have influenced the change in Church doctrine on many occasions.  This is just one of them.