Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This recognition is particularly important when evaluating claims such as what stemelbow made, to the effect that a Church member from 100 years ago would not recognize the Church as it is today, or that 100 years into the future, the Church would have been altered so drastically that we living today would not recognize it.

I think that Stemmelbow specifically first stated since 1870.  Maybe compromise and use that year (rather than all the way back to the organization of the church)?

Is that more fair?

Edited September 22, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

You said "between a man and a woman."

Oh, I get it now. You said "women," not "woman."

You were making a snarky comment.

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just want you and others to recognize what the initial challenge was and what the context of my response was. I don't think that has been happening.

Well, to be altogether accurate, I think there has to be an intelligent recognition that there was a formative period in Church history during which God's people were learning, "line upon line, precept upon precept," and that there came a time when doctrinal understanding became settled and relatively settled, and that there  hasn't been a great deal of change since then. This recognition is particularly important when evaluating claims such as what stemelbow made, to the effect that a Church member from 100 years ago would not recognize the Church as it is today, or that 100 years into the future, the Church would have been altered so drastically that we living today would not recognize it.

Most organizations, not just religions, go through a formative period before policies, procedures, doctrines, and so on are up in the air, and eventually things become settled. The early Christian church certainly went through a similar period.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh, I get it now. You said "women," not "woman."

You were making a snarky comment.

I wasn't making a snarky comment at all. Sorry you took it that way. The definition of marriage has changed for the church, at least for this life.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You can do it if you like, but recognize it would be outside the scope of what Hope_for_Things said to me and what I responded to him.

 

How about opening it up to Stemmelbow's original year of 1870?   I think that's what started this part of this discussion.

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

The challenge from Hope_for_Things was this:

In response, I listed several core doctrines that I believe haven't changed in the last 100 years (that was his arbitrary time period).

There has been some quibbling here over some of them, but I stand by my list as being a selection of core doctrines that are not subject to change.

You can cherry pick some quirky things like Adam-God (which wasn't no my list) and you can quibble over whether this or that isolated quote constitutes doctrine, but the core remains the same, including the doctrines pertaining to the eternity of a family unit and its associated definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

A few undisputed massive doctrinal changes include the following:

1)  God may be an exalted black man married to a white woman

2)  Jesus as a married God is no longer doctrinal

3)  Lorenzo Snow's couplet and underlying power of the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith in the King Follet was cut to the knees and was converted to a singlet and exaltation was reduced to not include creating or inheriting worlds.

4)  polygamy is not doctrinal 

 

Edited September 22, 2017 by blueglass

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I think that Stemmelbow specifically first stated since 1870.  Maybe compromise and use that year (rather than from the organization of the church)?

Whatever stemelbow said, the context of the discussion was the exchange between HfT and me. And I know stemelbow did make the claim regarding what things will be like 100 years into the future, when he said if we today were to go there, we wouldn't recognize it. So 100 years ago would be parallel to that claim.

Whatever. I'm not interested in a discussion about how things have changed from Joseph Smith's day or from the early Utah period. My position is that the core doctrines have remained stable for at least the last century and are likely to remain so in the next century, particularly as it pertains to the Church's asherance to traditional marriage, which leaders have repeatedly affirmed "will not change" and apparently did so again as recently as the priesthood leadership conference rongo is citing in this thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Most organizations, not just religions, go through a formative period before policies, procedures, doctrines, and so on are up in the air, and eventually things become settled. The early Christian church certainly went through a similar period.

Thank you. Would you agree with me that things have been settled in the Church of Jesus Christ for at least the last century?

Edited September 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I wasn't making a snarky comment at all. Sorry you took it that way. The definition of marriage has changed for the church, at least for this life.

Well, that's arguably true. But not in the last 100 years.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

How about opening it up to Stemmelbow's original year of 1870?   I think that's what started this part of this discussion.

I said you can do what you like. I won't be involved. Unless I get misquoted. Please don't do that.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, blueglass said:

A few undisputed massive doctrinal changes include the following:

1)  God may be an exalted black man married to a white woman

 

Speculative,  not doctrinal.

Quote

2)  Jesus as a married God is no longer doctrinal

Never was doctrinal.

Quote

3)  Lorenzo Snow's couplet and underlying power of the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith in the King Follet was cut to the knees and was converted to a singlet and exaltation was reduced to not include creating or inheriting worlds.

This, of course, is nonsense.

Quote

4)  polygamy is not doctrinal 

It's as doctrinal as it ever was. God, to suit His own purposes, will institute it temporarily, but it is not in place now.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hope_for_Things said doctrines in the Church will have changed substantially in 100 years. In response, I said they haven't changed a whole lot in the last 100 years. So what happened before then is really outside the scope of our conversation.

That's fine if you want to be strict about the scope and stick with that in regards to Hopes claims.  From my perspective (and pertaining to the conversation that i'm in), there is no reason to be that strict.  The spirit of the conversation, if not the law, is satisfied with the changes in the doctrine of baptism.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, blueglass said:

A few undisputed massive doctrinal changes include the following:

1)  God may be an exalted black man married to a white woman

2)  Jesus as a married God is no longer doctrinal

3)  Lorenzo Snow's couplet and underlying power of the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith in the King Follet was cut to the knees and was converted to a singlet and exaltation was reduced to not include creating or inheriting worlds.

4)  polygamy is not doctrinal 

 

Those are definitely disputed.  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's fine if you want to be strict about the scope and stick with that in regards to Hopes claims.  From my perspective (and pertaining to the conversation that i'm in), there is no reason to be that strict.  The spirit of the conversation, if not the law, is satisfied with the changes in the doctrine of baptism.

I just don't want to be taken out of context.

And bear in mind that the conversation originated as a way of casting doubt on the repeated declaration that the Church will never change its position with regard to traditional marriage. I accept that repeated declaration.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's as doctrinal as it ever was. God, to suit His own purposes, will institute it temporarily, but it is not in place now.

It's no longer taught that entering polygamy is a requirement to become a God.  That may be what blueglass is referring to.  

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just don't want to be taken out of context.

I don't think it is.  I think that the context (doctrines in the church evolve and change sometimes) of the discussion remains, even without the 100 year limit.  I understand what you mean though.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just don't want to be taken out of context.

Then maybe start a new discussion regarding your belief on whether or not doctrines do or have changed (or just restate it here if you don't want a new thread started).

Maybe you need to be clear on where you stand.  I"m honestly not sure....

ETA:

Just saw this from you (missed it earlier):

Well, to be altogether accurate, I think there has to be an intelligent recognition that there was a formative period in Church history during which God's people were learning, "line upon line, precept upon precept," and that there came a time when doctrinal understanding became settled and relatively settled, and that there  hasn't been a great deal of change since then. This recognition is particularly important when evaluating claims such as what stemelbow made, to the effect that a Church member from 100 years ago would not recognize the Church as it is today, or that 100 years into the future, the Church would have been altered so drastically that we living today would not recognize it.

From what you stated above, you acknowledge there has been change, especially in the "formative period", but not a "great deal of change" since then?  Is that accurate?

Edited September 22, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then start a new discussion regarding your belief on whether or not doctrines do or have changed. 

Maybe you need to be clear on where you stand.  

I think I already have been clear: Within the last 100 years, the core doctrines of the Church have remained stable, such that I can have confidence in the repeated declarations from Church leaders that the Church's position on traditional marriage will not change.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it is.  I think that the context (doctrines in the church evolve and change sometimes) of the discussion remains, even without the 100 year limit.  I understand what you mean though.

Are you saying that the doctrines of the Church are so volatile today that we can't have confidence in the repeated declarations that the Church won't change its position on traditional marriage? That argument is how this whole thing started.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I already have been clear: Within the last 100 years, the core doctrines of the Church have remained stable, such that I can have confidence in the repeated declarations from Church leaders that the Church's position on traditional marriage will not change.

I think we should learn from the past that when a leader or Prophet uses the word "never", that isn't always accurate and they have been mistaken.

The only thing we know is that change has been fairly constant since the church was organized and that change will most likely continue taking place.  None of us really know where that change will occur, but we also do not know where it will not occur.

I see the leaders softening their stance in the future regarding SSM, allowing members to stay in good standing as long as they are legally married and faithful to their spouses.  I see couples in a SSM being allowed to hold callings and fully participate in their wards.  But of course, I cannot know this will happen anymore than you can know that it won't.

From what I've read and heard, SSM couples are close to already doing these things in their wards.  They don't hold official callings, but have been welcomed into their wards and are participating.  I love hearing this is taking place.

Edited September 22, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think we should learn from the past that when a leader or Prophet uses the word "never", that isn't always accurate and they have been mistaken.

The only thing we know is that change has been fairly constant since the church was organized and that change will most likely continue taking place.  None of us really know where that change will occur, but we also do not know where it will not occur.

I see the leaders softening their stance in the future regarding SSM, allowing members to stay in good standing as long as they are legally married and faithful to their spouses.  I see couples in a SSM being allowed to hold callings and fully participate in their wards.  But of course, I cannot know this will happen anymore than you can know that it won't.

I can have confidence that it won't, because the leadership of the Church has said it won't. Repeatedly.

Has the leadership said, even once, that it might happen?

Quote

The only thing we know is that change has been fairly constant since the church was organized and that change will most likely continue taking place.

I disagree that change in the important doctrines and teachings of the Church has been all that constant in the last century. The doctrines of the Church today are not nearly as volatile as you and others would have us assume. Evidence of this is that you and others have to reach clear back into the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to highlight your changes. In contrast no one has mentioned anything since 1917, with the possible exception of the lifting of the priesthood ban, and it can be argued that that was foregone.

In short, while it's clear there have been changes since the earl days of the Church (a fact I haven't disputed here), I reject the argument that, going back a century or so, there has been enough volatility to justify contradicting the very clear, authoritative and repeated declarations that the Church won't change its position on traditional marriage. Ever.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can have confidence that it won't, because the leadership of the Church has said it won't. Repeatedly.

And leaders have been wrong before.

As I stated above, this is already close to happening within some wards where SSM or gay couples attend (no callings issued,  but they've not been excommunicated and have been shown love from their fellow ward members).  

I believe leaders are not anxious to enforce this new policy (and policies definitely change over time).  Wards are embracing couples who are gay rather than treating them like apostates and wanting their excommunication.  I admit there are not a lot of examples yet, but the ones I have read and heard about are encouraging and very positive.  I believe they have been treated as Christ would desire for them to be treated.

Edited September 22, 2017 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hope_for_Things said doctrines in the Church will have changed substantially in 100 years. In response, I said they haven't changed a whole lot in the last 100 years. So what happened before then is really outside the scope of our conversation.

He asked for just one example. I gave him a whole list (baptism was on it). But I stipulated the last 100 years as the time period.

It could be argued that the doctrines of the Church haven't so much changed as our understanding of those doctrines has changed.

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In contrast no one has mentioned anything since 1917, with the possible exception of the lifting of the priesthood ban, and it can be argued that that was foregone.

When you footnote the availability of the highest exaltation to black men and women it is highly disturbing. 

Edited September 22, 2017 by blueglass

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I already have been clear: Within the last 100 years, the core doctrines of the Church have remained stable, such that I can have confidence in the repeated declarations from Church leaders that the Church's position on traditional marriage will not change.

I've missed some of the recent back and forth on this thread, but it was my assertion that you originally challenged.  I disagree with your assertion about stability in the past 100 years.  There has been change but I would acknowledge that it seems the changes have been less dramatic than the 19th century innovation, which is somewhat to be expected as a new religious movement starts that we'd see more change in the earliest years.    

BTW, I opened up a new thread to discuss one topic that Avatar chose, and it's baptism.  

I will say that I'm less knowledgeable about 20th century changes and evolution in doctrines and practices than I am in early church because I've studied this time period less.  A few good books on this time period would include the two Greg Prince books (McKay bio, and Arrington bio that I've read) and I've heard really good things about the recent Mason & Turner book for historical analysis of 1945 up to the present time.  

https://www.amazon.com/Out-Obscurity-Mormonism-since-1945/dp/0199358222/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1506109934&sr=1-5&keywords=patrick+mason

Just the correlation movement alone has resulted in quite the cultural change.  Some of the innovations of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McKonkie created an environment where some doctrines became more conservative/fundamentalist, while recent changes with Joseph Smith Papers and greater openness of history is representing a shift that we're currently living through.  

Virtually everything has changed to some degree throughout the history of humankind including Mormon doctrines and practices.  Whether those changes bother some people or not is inconsequential because they are participating in the change whether they know it and acknowledge it or not.