The Winds of Social Change. Should it matter within the Church?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

A few days ago I read an article that addressed the average age of the Quorum of the Twelve, and the First Presidency. I am unsure of the article’s title today, and could not locate again. I do know that I read it, either in the Salt Lake Tribune, or on LDS.NET which now goes by the name, “Third Hour”. Hopefully someone here who is more tech savvy (as most are) than myself, could possibly locate the article, and post a link. 
 

The article noted that the average age of the First Presidency, and Apostles, is 90 years of age! I don’t know if this is completely accurate, but if so, I do find this very comforting. I think that both “age and life experiences”, especially when those lives have been devoted to “Spiritual matters”, contain the perfect recipe for “Wisdom”. 

This article brought my mind, “The Family, A Declaration to the World”, a document I have often wondered why it is not a part of our “open Canon”? Especially with the many social norms in or society today changing so rapidly, concerning both marriage and gender. Also in recent years changes in both “laws and attitudes”, concerning drugs, such as the legalization of marijuana in many States, just to name two issues that come to my mind, upon reading the above mentioned article. 
 

Just two things the author of this article noted... The author listed as a “positive” of our Leadership’s “average age”, the lack of possible “sexual misconduct”, and other scandals. Then the author listed as a “negative”, of our Leadership’s “average age”, as being “out of touch”, and therefore resistant to “social change”.
 

So to the question...

Should “social change” ever be a part of either the “direction or doctrine”, of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Or should any Christian Church, based upon only the Bible? 

This would be better with that “link”, so I hope some one can provide it. 
 

BTW:  This tread is not about the politics that may, or may not surround the two examples I gave of recent social changes. So please, let’s stay on the main path, and not get caught up in the weeds, concerning the “Church and should it be guided by Social Change”. 

   
 

 

 

[Rain]

9 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

 ...

Should “social change” ever be a part of either the “direction

 

Depends on what you mean by "direction". If you mean the end goal then no, social change should not change that we are aiming to go to God.

If you mean the directions the church gives us then yes, social change  should change some of those directions.  Some of the things the prophet tells us to do only applies to our day (wearing a mask and social distancing for example). Other things apply to us always (pray).

9 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

or doctrine”, of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

 

I'm with Elder Bednar in the idea that doctrines are relatively few and cannot (and should not change).  I think a lot of people feel there are a lot more doctrines than I do and I don't think that some of those things should stay the same with social change...or any kind of change.

9 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Or should any Christian Church, based upon only the Bible? 

This would be better with that “link”, so I hope some one can provide it. 
 

BTW:  This tread is not about the politics that may, or may not surround the two examples I gave of recent social changes. So please, let’s stay on the main path, and not get caught up in the weeds, concerning the “Church and should it be guided by Social Change”. 

   
 

 

 

 

[CA Steve]

I suppose that would depend on whether or not one believes that God uses social changes to influence those changes within the church.

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

A few days ago I read an article that addressed the average age of the Quorum of the Twelve, and the First Presidency. I am unsure of the article’s title today, and could not locate again. I do know that I read it, either in the Salt Lake Tribune, or on LDS.NET which now goes by the name, “Third Hour”. Hopefully someone here who is more tech savvy (as most are) than myself, could possibly locate the article, and post a link. 

The article noted that the average age of the First Presidency, and Apostles, is 90 years of age! I don’t know if this is completely accurate, but if so, I do find this very comforting. I think that both “age and life experiences”, especially when those lives have been devoted to “Spiritual matters”, contain the perfect recipe for “Wisdom”. 

This article brought my mind, “The Family, A Declaration to the World”, a document I have often wondered why it is not a part of our “open Canon”? Especially with the many social norms in or society today changing so rapidly, concerning both marriage and gender. Also in recent years changes in both “laws and attitudes”, concerning drugs, such as the legalization of marijuana in many States, just to name two issues that come to my mind, upon reading the above mentioned article. 

Just two things the author of this article noted... The author listed as a “positive” of our Leadership’s “average age”, the lack of possible “sexual misconduct”, and other scandals. Then the author listed as a “negative”, of our Leadership’s “average age”, as being “out of touch”, and therefore resistant to “social change”.

So to the question...

Should “social change” ever be a part of either the “direction or doctrine”, of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Or should any Christian Church, based upon only the Bible? 
This would be better with that “link”, so I hope some one can provide it. 

BTW:  This tread is not about the politics that may, or may not surround the two examples I gave of recent social changes. So please, let’s stay on the main path, and not get caught up in the weeds, concerning the “Church and should it be guided by Social Change”. 

A few thoughts:

1. Social change can and will affect and inform how the Church functions.

2. Some of these effects are good, and some are bad.  

3. I think many of the most harmful effects of the "social change" on the Church pertain to the A) Law of Chastity B) marriage and family, C) Word of Wisdom, D) politicization, E) distractions and F) secularization.

4. Some of the good effects are A) increased attention to, and correction of, assumptions and attitudes regarding race, B) increased kindness and compassion regarding LGBT issues, C) increased candor and transparency regarding controversies and difficulties in the Church's history.

5. I believe the Lord continues to guide the Church.  I see much evidence of this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 28, 2021 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

40 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

The article noted that the average age of the First Presidency, and Apostles, is 90 years of age! I don’t know if this is completely accurate.

So to the question...

Should “social change” ever be a part of either the “direction or doctrine”, of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

 

Or should any Christian Church, based upon only the Bible? 

1. It's not accurate.

2. Social change should not direct doctrine but it's naive to think it hasn't and won't.

3. Doctrine is whatever God reveals as true.  And that's not limited to the Bible.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

1. It's not accurate.

2. Social change should not direct doctrine but it's naive to think it hasn't and won't.

3. Doctrine is whatever God reveals as true.  And that's not limited to the Bible.

1. What is not accurate? The average age? 
 

2. I agree with your number two reply.

3. My comment about “the Bible” referred to other Christians denominations, in our case most certainly not limited to the Bible. 
 

Thank you for your reply, but back to number #1...what is the “average age” of all 15 Apostles?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

A few days ago I read an article that addressed the average age of the Quorum of the Twelve, and the First Presidency. I am unsure of the article’s title today, and could not locate again. I do know that I read it, either in the Salt Lake Tribune, or on LDS.NET which now goes by the name, “Third Hour”. Hopefully someone here who is more tech savvy (as most are) than myself, could possibly locate the article, and post a link. 

Probably this one, but I am maxed out on freebies apparently, so haven’t read it:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/02/15/jana-riess-latter-day/. Headline is “top LDS leaders average age 90” 

Here’s another version, I am guessing:

https://religionnews.com/2021/02/15/leadership-by-old-men-in-mormonism-gerontocracy-is-a-blessing-and-a-curse/

Edited February 28, 2021 by Calm

[2BizE]

Social means norms and influences of society.  Members are part of society, so certainly social changes do have influence on members.  

Edited February 28, 2021 by 2BizE

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

3. I think many of the most harmful effects of the "social change" on the Church pertain to the A) Law of Chastity 

This one, the “Law of Chasity”, and for those who disregard it, and give way to so many, “social norms”, has in the past and will continue to bring about so many broken hearts, and broken spirits. But praise be to a loving God, and the Atonement of Jesus Christ, which can both heal and restore. My own biological father, who destroyed two families, because he did not heed the teachings of the Christian family, in which he grew up in. He lost a wife and three children in my family, including 10 grandchildren, and 29 great grandchildren, and three great-great grandchildren, none of which today bare his name. They do however bare the name of the wonderful man and Father who made us his own, a wonderful man of God, who saved us from a broken home, despair, and at times, even homelessness. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Probably this one, but I am maxed out on freebies apparently, so haven’t read it:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/02/15/jana-riess-latter-day/. Headline is “top LDS leaders average age 90” 

Here’s another version, I am guessing:

https://religionnews.com/2021/02/15/leadership-by-old-men-in-mormonism-gerontocracy-is-a-blessing-and-a-curse/

Thank you so much, you always come through for us. God bless you! 

[Calm]

Quote

Those evangelical dumpster fires are the kinds of stories I haven’t seen in my decade-plus of writing a national column about Mormonism, nor do I expect to. Right now, the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is headed by a 96-year-old prophet. His two counselors in the First Presidency are ages 88 and 87, respectively.

With an average age of 90, this is the oldest First Presidency we have had in all of Mormon history.

But age is not the primary factor keeping experienced Latter-day Saint leaders far away from sexual misconduct. I mean, look at Zacharias. Before he died last year in his mid-70s, he apparently spent his golden years acquiring enough technological know-how to master the sexually explicit selfie.

Rather, in Mormonism, men like him are quietly (and too slowly) weeded out of the system. One of the highest-ranking Mormon leaders to be publicly accused of sexual misconduct was Joseph Bishop, who was a mission president in South America as well as the president of the Missionary Training Center during the mid-1980s. Bishop did not rise any higher than that, even though in a recorded interview from 2017 he acknowledged he knew he was once in the running to be called as a general authority:

When he had put my name in the hat to become a Seventy, I was never called. I know why. I know why. Because Carlos Asay may not have done what he should have done with you, but he did what he should have done with me.

Oh my word...she puts that bit about Bishop in with no context, that it was not an interview, but a pretext for a confrontation by an alleged victim who later was revealed to be a scam artist who regularly accused men of sexual assault which result in imprisonment for at least one iirc.  Bishop at the time of the recording was, IMO, a narcissist who blamed his failures ultimately on others (his sexual hang ups and failures in marriage were because of his late wife as well as his exwife).  His stories came across as rehearsed revisions with him center stage as hero (his recent surgery was described like a major miracle of the universe ensuring he survived).  I wouldn’t trust anything he said.  Whether this was consistent with his behaviour all his life or a sign of mild dementia (he definitely had memory issues and was easily led), don’t have a clue.  Iirc, he said he knew he was being considered because of a look a leader gave him (President Kimball maybe) when he clasped his hand or something, they conversed without speaking kind of thing...my memory may be off, I should double check.

Love her use of “official stance” too as if there something said differently behind the scenes.

Sorry, Bill, she just set me off slipping that in as if solid evidence.   Back to your topic.  I will delete my rant if you want.

Correction:  looks like the quote came from a different part of the conversation. I would like to know exactly what Brother Wells said, if anything.  Like I said above, I don’t trust Bishop’s stories.  I forgot to add in addition his accuracy in recall being affected by possible wistful fantasying or mild dementia, he was likely on painkillers as he was there in a wheelchair  a few days after heart iirc surgery. 
 

Quote

I could have been great. I know that. I was one time Bob Wells told me that ... and it was about the same time this other was going on.

Which other? When you and ... Oh, and-

Yeah. When he had put my name in the hat to become a Seventy,
I w a s n e v e r c a ll e d . I k n o w w h y . I k n o w w h y . B e c a u s e C a r l o s A s a y m a y n o t h a v e done what he should have done with you, but he did what he should have done with me.

From mormonleaks

This is the one I confused it with:

Quote

I know that President Kimball was a prophet because of ... And I told him the story of how President Kimball had interviewed me and not said a word. I felt the questions. I felt the answers going out. We were there and he was holding me in his arms. Knowing like a veil came down around us and the people that were in the room were chatting and didn't know what was happening. Then the following Saturday, he called me on the phone and said, "I just want you to know I'm praying for you and that I love you." Then the following week I was called. It took me out of the situation I was presently to stand, and I had reorganized the knowledge because it needed to be reorganized. There was a lot of pain.

 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Calm

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

53 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I suppose that would depend on whether or not one believes that God uses social changes to influence those changes within the church.

I am sure he does, when necessary. He even uses the wicked at times to bring about change. The scriptures are filled with so many examples of this, so it stands to reason he may be behind at least some social change. But certainly not all, or I hope not all. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Oh my word...she puts that bit about Bishop in with no context, that it was not an interview, but a pretext for a confrontation by an alleged victim who later was revealed to be a scam artist who regularly accused men of sexual assault which result in imprisonment for at least one iirc.  Bishop at the time of the recording was, IMO, a narcissist who blamed his failures ultimately on others (his sexual hang ups and failures in marriage were because of his late wife as well as his exwife).  His stories came across as rehearsed revisions with him center stage as hero (his recent surgery was described like a major miracle of the universe ensuring he survived).  I wouldn’t trust anything he said.  Whether this was consistent with his behaviour all his life or a sign of mild dementia (he definitely had memory issues and was easily led), don’t have a clue.

 

Sorry, Bill, she just set me off slipping that in as if solid evidence. 

No worries, I apparently have not kept up with that story. I had no idea that this woman had done this to others, that is horrifying to hear. It does not excuse what this Bishop may or may not have done. Having not kept up with the story, I believed her story. Now I don’t know the truth at all. Wow! 

[Calm]

Quote

This is an excellent case study of who gets promoted to leadership in the LDS church and why. It’s the loyalists, not the idealists or the agitators, the ones who are willing to toe the party line — even if that position is not one they agree with — the ones who have demonstrated over years and even decades they are adept at prioritizing the institution over the individual.

In terms of leadership, that means Mormonism is far more insulated from sex scandals or financial embezzlement than other conservative religions that gravitate toward charismatic individual leaders — the self-starters, the pastor-preneurs. That’s our silver lining.

The cost of that relative safety is that we have often misunderstood what “prophetic” is supposed to mean: speaking truth to power, again and again if necessary.

In order to redeem myself, here is her conclusion.

[longview]

The direction of social change can be either good or bad - - -

The good:

• elimination of Jim Crow laws
• protection for under-age children from hard labor or dangerous occupations
• prohibition of sexual trafficking or unlawful involuntary servitude
• (many more can be listed here - - -)

The bad:

• forcing women's sporting organizations to admit "biological males" to compete as "transgenders"
• requiring the unnecessary expenses for extra gender bathrooms
• proscriptions against "unprogressive" speech
• (and a whole rash of concerns - - -)

The ugly:

• surgical mutilations of confused children
• aggressive hormonal modification of normal biological functions
• increasing collaborations among governmental, corporate entities, educational institutions, foundations to coerce or persecute those that resist unwanted social engineering
• good being called evil and evil called good - - - Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
• (and its going to get worse!)

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

 

So to the question...

Should “social change” ever be a part of either the “direction or doctrine”, of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Or should any Christian Church, based upon only the Bible?

 

Important changes in the Church should be based on revelation.  God does not care about social change. He has seen social change in societies on this planet for thousands of years.  Who knows how much he has seen on the billions of other worlds out there.  God knows what works and what does not work.  The one thing you can count on with social change is that it will keep changing.  Mostly for the worse when it comes to righteous things.  The Church needs to be a lighthouse to lead people to the truth.  Not drift with the crowd as they find truth.

[JustAnAustralian]

Social change may inspire the question to be asked, and may influence the way an answer is implemented.

Looking at polygamy (and doing a massive summary here, so people can correct me where I'm wrong):

The government was coming after the church

The prophet prayed about what should happen in relation to polygamy

The prophet received revelation about what would happen to the church and members if they kept practicing polygamy.

Practice publicly ceased in the USA.

Men can still be sealed to 2nd, 3rd wives etc today as long as they are no longer legally married to the previous wives and get 1st Presidency approval. So the core doctrine of sealings wasn't altered as a result of societal reasons, but they caused the question to be asked, and influenced the way the answer was implemented.

 

Edited March 1, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Men can still be sealed to 2nd, 3rd wives etc today as long as they are no longer legally married to the previous wives and get 1st Presidency approval. So the core doctrine of sealings wasn't altered as a result of societal reasons, but they caused the question to be asked, and influenced the way the answer was implemented.

Also, now once dead men and women are treated the same and while not common, I have heard of a number of exceptions made that allowed women to be sealed to second husbands after the death of their first without cancellations, so I suspect we will eventually be allowing multiple sealings for living women as well.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

so I suspect we will eventually be allowing multiple sealings for women.

Yep. I could quite easily see this happening.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

In order to redeem myself, here is her conclusion.

The demand that apostles “speak truth to power” is basically a demand for them to challenge the world as a collective whole. While the prophets of ancient Israel did challenge kings and rulers most of those challenges were aimed at those who nominally accepted the religion to one degree or another. Demanding that the apostles agitate against leaders in the world to correct injustice is often an attempt to get the Church to sacrifice its missionary program on the altar of meaningless grandstanding. If Jesus and his apostles had spent their ministries grandstanding against Rome the Church would likely have died much more quickly. They instead took the state of the world as a general given and taught the gospel. I believe the spread of the gospel is more likely to spread good and combat injustice than having the apostles denounce the leaders of corrupt nations or to focus their message on pet moral and social projects. There is much wrong in the world even in the best places on Earth. Choosing to become perpetual critics of the world would weaken the core message and that is what the church leaders are entrusted with.

Occasionally the church steps into these other arenas. We saw that with the gay marriage contention. The Church spoke its piece, asked for support, lost, and then moved on without recriminations or an endless war to ‘fix’ the problem. They had more important things to do.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 2/28/2021 at 12:50 PM, CA Steve said:

I suppose that would depend on whether or not one believes that God uses social changes to influence those changes within the church.

Usually social change has it’s “genesis”, from either a small collective movement brought on by largely external forces, and spread via acceptance in various communities. In times past, especially in “long times past”, it would be restricted in a very small  geographical area in which it was “inspired”, for lack of a better term. Then as the world became smaller through easier travel, or even through conquest and war, it was brought to larger geographical areas, such as in Roman times. Also social change came about through “trade routes”, which were also brought about through the advent of better roads, which were built by, and aided Roman conquest. As different means of travel became more advanced, via ships at sea, and latter air travel, and sadly even larger scale wars, the “geographical areas” became the world. In our day, the Internet has made the world as small as once small neighborhoods, as new ideas and fads become know almost instantaneously. 
 

This is not to say that these movements, or social changes are all bad, but in far too many cases, they are not “Gospel Friendly”, in the least. Many of these changes to our “social norms“ become more acceptable, simply because of there constant exposure, via media and entertainment. A very large number of many changing norms, become acceptable to many who do not wish to seem intolerant. However the same changes that many who wish to seem “intolerant”, would be very offensive, and highly unwelcome, should they occur in our homes, our immediate communities, or near those which we love and seek to protect. 
 

For instance, when I was young, many forms of today’s entertainment, were listed as “R rated”, or worse, but today are “PG-13, or PG”. There was a time that taking the “Lord’s name in vain”, would be an immediate “R rating”. Now, it is used almost daily in TV shows, “made for TV movies”, with no filters. In fact the use of this type of language is widely permitted, while they seek to offset it by banning the use of other words. A large number of “PG-13” movies contain very reveling and suggestive sexual content. In fact many who would never permit such behavior in their own homes, yards, and even public sidewalks, invite into their homes almost daily. In fact such behavior in daily TV, would result in arrest if done anywhere in the public square, or near anyone under the age of 18. “Social changes”, that we have simply become desensitized too, through daily and constant exposure. 
 

So, the very long answer to your question. Yes, God does use social change, but is not often the author of far to much in our rapidly changing world today. As so very much comes from an non-believing world, and worldly forum. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 2/28/2021 at 2:36 PM, longview said:

The direction of social change can be either good or bad - - -

The good:

• elimination of Jim Crow laws
• protection for under-age children from hard labor or dangerous occupations
• prohibition of sexual trafficking or unlawful involuntary servitude
• (many more can be listed here - - -)

The bad:

• forcing women's sporting organizations to admit "biological males" to compete as "transgenders"
• requiring the unnecessary expenses for extra gender bathrooms
• proscriptions against "unprogressive" speech
• (and a whole rash of concerns - - -)

The ugly:

• surgical mutilations of confused children
• aggressive hormonal modification of normal biological functions
• increasing collaborations among governmental, corporate entities, educational institutions, foundations to coerce or persecute those that resist unwanted social engineering
• good being called evil and evil called good - - - Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
• (and its going to get worse!)

This is a wonderful list, I was unable to compile such a list, though my natural inability or talent to do so. So thank you.