Are the rules just whatever God wants?

[smac97]

On 1/22/2022 at 12:50 PM, california boy said:

It has been my experience that God's laws tend to be what mankind wants them to be.  

I have never really understood this assertion.  It seems facially strange to me.  Many of the commandments are constraints on behavior, prohibitions on what people are inclined to do, but which people abstain from out of a sense of love, duty and honor to God. 

Look at the Law of Chastity.  it seems odd to say that people want to constrain their sexual behaviors to parameters set by God.  

Not taking the Lord's name in vain.  We are commanded to not do this because, it seems, there is a strong tendency to do it.

"Thou shalt not kill."  "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  "Thou shalt not steal."  "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

It makes little sense to say that these laws reflect "what mankind wants them to be" because they work against what men are some

Additionally, many other commandments are mandates to go and do things we might not otherwise do.  These are instructions to go and do specific things that the Lord needs us to do.  Missionary work.  Serving a mission is a real challenge for many precisely because we are being called upon to step way outside of our comfort zone.

Temple work.  But for the commandment to build and worship in temples, I don't think we would.

The Law of Tithing.  It seems odd to say that people want to part with 10% of their income.  

Keeping the Sabbath day holy.  

And on and on and on.

On 1/22/2022 at 12:50 PM, california boy said:

If they were all so clear cut, everyone would be following the same laws.

I think we've seen all sorts of evidence that basic morality and laws transcend individual societies.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Society (culture and religion) does influence our sense of ethics but that is just the surface, the roots of morality run much deeper. The thing is, there are numerous different societies, each with its unique beliefs and ways, yet humans everywhere share a basic moral code. Therefore, according to new research, morality is an ancient instinct in humans, so much so that hints of it have even been found in some other social animals too.

So despite the wide variety of human cultures around the world, this new study identifies seven “universal moral rules” that exist in virtually every society. It is being hailed as “the largest and most comprehensive cross-cultural survey of morals ever conducted,” according to a news release about the findings from the University of Oxford. The study was published in the journal Current Anthropology.

Oliver Scott Curry, senior researcher at Oxford’s Institute for Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, and lead author of the study said in a statement:

“‘The debate between moral universalists and moral relativists has raged for centuries, but now we have some answers. People everywhere face a similar set of social problems, and use a similar set of moral rules to solve them. As predicted, these seven moral rules appear to be universal across cultures. Everyone everywhere shares a common moral code. All agree that cooperating, promoting the common good, is the right thing to do.”
...

These are what the authors call the “plausible candidates for universal moral rules”:

• Help your family.
• Help your group.
• Return favors.
• Be brave.
• Defer to superiors.
• Divide resources fairly.
• Respect others’ property.

Years ago I taught courses on the law at a local university. I teach a course on legal research every semester, which includes an extensive review of basic legal vocabulary. One of the terms I test on is "malum in se," a Latin phrase "used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct." It is often juxtaposed against "malum prohibitum," which refers to "conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute."

Every semester I provided the above definitions and then, without any further instruction or prompting from me, I ask the class to give me three examples of conduct that is malum in se. Invariably, and I mean each and every semester, I received the same three responses: murder, rape and theft. The terms sometimes vary ("killing" instead of "murder," "sexual abuse" instead of "rape," "stealing" instead of "theft," etc.), but the same three concepts are always volunteered by students.

I then asked my students to explain why these things are malum in se, and the response is generally "Well, they just are."

My personal opinion, never shared in class, is that the legal concept of malum in se (and, in a broader sense, the concept of natural law) is one of the purest evidences of God, and of the Light of Christ. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Olmec Donald said:

Was God the Father, Creator of the universe, once a mortal man like us who had many failings and imperfections, or was he a perfect man like his son Jesus Christ?  

 

There are teachings from the prophets both ways.  I'm content with either option.

[smac97]

On 1/22/2022 at 12:09 PM, JLHPROF said:

Two previous comments got me thinking about the idea that God can change what he allows or approves of according to his will.  These comments imply that all laws and commandments come according to what God desires at any given time.

I unsurprisingly have multiple concerns with such thinking.  Not the least among these is the troubling idea of a fickle, inconstant deity.

For context, the first poster stated God could give priesthood to anyone he wants any time he wants, even going so far to include animals.  The second poster suggested that God can issue new approval for things that have never yet existed any time he wants.  In this case SSM or female ordination.

What does everyone think - do rules and divine approval of them simply come from what God personally wants for us at any given time?  Are laws subject to God or is God subject to law?

Something I wrote back in 2016 in response to the question "Could God fall?":

Quote

My thoughts:

1. Perfection, as an attribute of God, includes total mastery of will/agency.
2. Total mastery of will means total/perfect compliance with eternal laws.  
3. Total compliance with eternal laws puts the surety of God's unchanging/unending righteousness (and, hence, His status as "God") on par with those eternal laws.  So 2 + 2 (in an interval scale) will always equal 4.  Always.  No question.  No debate.  No hypothetical scenario where 2 + 2 ≠ 4 (again, on an interval scale).  God's righteousness is likewise definite.  Enduring.  Everlasting.  Quite a comforting thought, that.

Both Mormon and Alma made rhetorical statements about conditions under which "{God} would cease to be God."  However, both of them immediately clarify that these are purely rhetorical/hypothetical statements, not predictions or declarations that God might "cease to be God."  See, e.g., Mormons 9:15, 19 (emphases added):

 15 And now, O all ye that have imagined up unto yourselves a god who can do no miracles, I would ask of you, have all these things passed, of which I have spoken? Has the end come yet? Behold I say unto you, Nay; and God has not ceased to be a God of miracles.
...
 19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

And Alma 42 (emphasis added):

 13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.
...
 22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

 23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

See also the numerous scriptures regarding the attributes of God, including:

• the Lord changes not: 3 Ne. 24:6 . (Moro. 8:18.)
• God is same yesterday, today, forever: Morm. 9:9 .
• no variableness or shadow of changing in God: Morm. 9:9–10 .
• God is same yesterday, today, forever: D&C 20:12 .
• God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, from everlasting to everlasting: D&C 20:17 .

So, to answer your question ("Could God fall?"), we have to look at the lexical limitations we face, such as what do we mean by "could."  But at the end of it all, and based on the above scriptures, my answer is, essentially . . . God will never fall.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

On 1/30/2022 at 1:47 PM, smac97 said:

I have never really understood this assertion.  It seems facially strange to me.  Many of the commandments are constraints on behavior, prohibitions on what people are inclined to do, but which people abstain from out of a sense of love, duty and honor to God. 

Look at the Law of Chastity.  it seems odd to say that people want to constrain their sexual behaviors to parameters set by God.  

I think it's clear that they want others to refrain from sexual behavior they think is gross or threatening. You don't want your wife cheating on you? Guess what; God commands that! You think homosexual behavior is gross? Guess what! God doesn't want other people doing that, either.

In contrast, sometimes God commands the prophet to enter into secret "marriages" with other women, including women who are married to other men and women who are barely more than girls. We are told that God wants these relationships to happen so badly that sometimes he sends an angel with a flaming sword to enforce it.

On 1/30/2022 at 1:47 PM, smac97 said:

"Thou shalt not kill."  "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  "Thou shalt not steal."  "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

With the exception of the adultery rule, these commandments are universal in all societies. Who wants to live in a society where everybody else feels no moral obligation to refrain from lying, stealing, and killing?

Regarding adultery, see my comments above regarding the law of chastity. 

On 1/30/2022 at 1:47 PM, smac97 said:

Additionally, many other commandments are mandates to go and do things we might not otherwise do.  These are instructions to go and do specific things that the Lord needs us to do.  Missionary work.  Serving a mission is a real challenge for many precisely because we are being called upon to step way outside of our comfort zone.

But remember who is doing the commanding here. If somebody likes power and likes belonging to a growing church, commanding others to go on missions is aligned with that. If the females have been conditioned to prefer males who demonstrate their suitability for marriage by whether he went on a mission, males will suddenly have a strong motivation to serve.

On 1/30/2022 at 1:47 PM, smac97 said:

Temple work.  But for the commandment to build and worship in temples, I don't think we would.

Temples are an interesting dynamic. People like the concepts of temples, and if your child is getting married in one, 10% of your income is the price to attend your own child's wedding.

On 1/30/2022 at 1:47 PM, smac97 said:

The Law of Tithing.  It seems odd to say that people want to part with 10% of their income.  

If you are a leader in a church that needs income, it's quite convenient that God wants people to give 10% of their income to you.

On 1/30/2022 at 1:47 PM, smac97 said:

Keeping the Sabbath day holy.  

Who doesn't want to have an extra day of the week to relax?

On 1/30/2022 at 1:47 PM, smac97 said:

And on and on and on.

I think we've seen all sorts of evidence that basic morality and laws transcend individual societies.  See, e.g., here:

Years ago I taught courses on the law at a local university. I teach a course on legal research every semester, which includes an extensive review of basic legal vocabulary. One of the terms I test on is "malum in se," a Latin phrase "used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct." It is often juxtaposed against "malum prohibitum," which refers to "conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute."

Every semester I provided the above definitions and then, without any further instruction or prompting from me, I ask the class to give me three examples of conduct that is malum in se. Invariably, and I mean each and every semester, I received the same three responses: murder, rape and theft. The terms sometimes vary ("killing" instead of "murder," "sexual abuse" instead of "rape," "stealing" instead of "theft," etc.), but the same three concepts are always volunteered by students.

I then asked my students to explain why these things are malum in se, and the response is generally "Well, they just are."

These things are intrinsically wrong because we are social animals. Refraining from murdering, raping, and stealing is a small price to pay to live in a society where nobody murders, rapes, or steals.

The field of science that provides testable explanations of these theories is called evolutionary psychology.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

 

I have never really understood this assertion.  It seems facially strange to me.  Many of the commandments are constraints on behavior, prohibitions on what people are inclined to do, but which people abstain from out of a sense of love, duty and honor to God. 

Look at the Law of Chastity.  it seems odd to say that people want to constrain their sexual behaviors to parameters set by God.  

 

I think it's clear that they want others to refrain from sexual behavior they think is gross or threatening.

This seems evasive and facile.  

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

You don't want your wife cheating on you? Guess what; God commands that!

This still isn't making sense to me.  Your comments presuppose patent or latent hypocrisy, as if prophets have a "Law of Chastity for thee, but not for me" attitude.  That's simply not so with the Law of Chastity, as everyone is held to the same standard.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

You think homosexual behavior is gross? Guess what! God doesn't want other people doing that, either.

Again, this is evasive and facile.  You are eliding on past the constraints on extra-marital sex, I think because they fundamentally undermine your reasoning.

If the commandments really were reflective of the whims and preferences of men, we would not see rigid constraints on sexual behavior.  We would instead see Korihor-style philosophies of hedonism and sensuality that are expressly and roundly condemned in the Book of Mormon.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

In contrast, sometimes God commands the prophet to enter into secret "marriages" with other women, including women who are married to other men and women who are barely more than girls. We are told that God wants these relationships to happen so badly that sometimes he sends an angel with a flaming sword to enforce it.

I'm fine with a straight-up discussion, but sly, leering innuendo does not do the subject matter justice.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

"Thou shalt not kill."  "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  "Thou shalt not steal."  "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

With the exception of the adultery rule, these commandments are universal in all societies. Who wants to live in a society where everybody else feels no moral obligation to refrain from lying, stealing, and killing?

CB said that the commandments "tend to be what mankind wants them to be."  I rebutted this by noting that this seems unlikely because the commandments often constrain us from doing things we are generally inclined to do.

So are you agreeing with CB, or with me?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Additionally, many other commandments are mandates to go and do things we might not otherwise do.  These are instructions to go and do specific things that the Lord needs us to do.  Missionary work.  Serving a mission is a real challenge for many precisely because we are being called upon to step way outside of our comfort zone.

But remember who is doing the commanding here.

The Lord?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

If somebody likes power and likes belonging to a growing church, commanding others to go on missions is aligned with that.

That's a mighty big "if."

Pres. Nelson is in his 90s.  He could have retired decades ago and had a long, comfortable set of twilight years.  Instead, he will work until he literally dies.  The same goes for all of the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

The Brethren only have as much power as the observant members voluntarily give to them.  It's a pretty tenuous thing.  More to the point, though, I think your assertion is devoid of substantial supporting evidence.  I don't think the Brethren are in it for the power, or the money.  The most competent, probative evidence is that they are quite sincere in what they believe and in the motives for their counseling us to serve in the Church, do missionary work, temple work, perform acts of service, and so on.  

Your cynicism is a lazy, evidence-free taunt.  That's all.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

If the females have been conditioned to prefer males who demonstrate their suitability for marriage by whether he went on a mission, males will suddenly have a strong motivation to serve.

Right.  The Latter-day Saints are utterly craven.  No sincerity.  No good faith.  Latter-day Saint men serve missions to gain sexual access to women, and that's all.

How utterly unserious you are being.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Temple work.  But for the commandment to build and worship in temples, I don't think we would.

Temples are an interesting dynamic.

"Interesting dynamic" seems to be code for "this doesn't at all fit within my cynical contempt for the Latter-day Saints, so I'll fabricate a cheapshot to diminish and disparage the concept."

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

People like the concepts of temples, and if your child is getting married in one, 10% of your income is the price to attend your own child's wedding.

See?

Temple worship is a very important part of the Latter-day Saint belief system.  They, and family history work associated with them, take massive amounts of time, money and effort to build and maintain.  But according to you and CB, we only build and worship in temples because - somehow - "mankind wants" to do such things.  That's a mighty strange assertion.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The Law of Tithing.  It seems odd to say that people want to part with 10% of their income.  

If you are a leader in a church that needs income, it's quite convenient that God wants people to give 10% of their income to you.

Again, this is evasive and facile.  The Brethren didn't create the Law of Tithing.  And the Brethren are not living profligately, and so hardly accrue any notable financial benefit from my tithes.

You are very long on evidence-free cynicism today.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Keeping the Sabbath day holy.  

Who doesn't want to have an extra day of the week to relax?

Isn't ditching the Sabbath one of the big perqs that people who leave the Church come to enjoy?

You are really not doing a good job of shoring up CB's assertion that "God's laws tend to be what mankind wants them to be."  The commandments are, per you and CB, supposedly only reflective of the craven preferences of people. 

If I were not a Latter-day Saint, I would do all sorts of things on Sunday that I do not now do, because I would be free of the law's constraints.

If I were not a Latter-day Saint, I would probably experiment with alcohol, marijuana, shrooms, and other mind-altering substances.

If I were not a Latter-day Saint, I would keep most or all of the 10% I donate as tithing.

If I were not a Latter-day Saint, I would not have spent two years serving a mission in Taiwan, nor would I be planning to spend substantial portions of my retired life serving more missions.

If I were not a Latter-day Saint, I would not attend the temple, and I likely would not attend weekly church services, either.

Cumulatively speaking, the commandments dissuade us from harmful, destructive, immoral behaviors and guide us into virtuous, admirable behaviors.  The commandments very often make us work harder than we otherwise would, abstain from things that we would otherwise do, and so on.  To say that the commandments are merely reflective of the whims of men is both unserious and contrary to the evidence at hand.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

These things are intrinsically wrong because we are social animals.

Lions are social animals, too.  Yet infanticide is fairly common.

I submit that "these things are intrinsically wrong" not because society has deemed them so, but because we recognize, and generally hold ourselves accountable to, moral laws that transcend societal expectations and rules.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Refraining from murdering, raping, and stealing is a small price to pay to live in a society where nobody murders, rapes, or steals.

And yet people do murder, rape and steal.  If CB's thesis was right, then we would get commandments that endorse these things, rather than prohibit them.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The field of science that provides testable explanations of these theories is called evolutionary psychology.

I'm quite open to the concept.  But I'm also open to there being a higher power that has instilled in us the capacity to ascertain things that are - as you put it - "intrinsically" wrong (or intrinsically right).  

The Law of Chastity is a material constraint on the natural impulse to engage in sexual activity.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

This seems evasive and facile.  

Yea, my prior response was a bit insolent in places and I apologize. Providing a more serious answer, the question is this:

 Are “God’s commandments” what mankind wants them to be?

“God’s commandments” are a heterogeneous group of rules.

One subset is the “seven moral rules found around the world.” These all have one thing in common—they promote cooperation. Evolutionary psychology predicted that these seven rules would exist in all cultures, and this was shown to be true. These rules are in fact beneficial to human societies, and we evolved to know this in our gut—individuals and societies who strongly felt these moral obligations had an evolutionary advantage over those who did not. The specific rules being what they are is strong evidence that they are a product of evolution and not revelation. Commandments that align with these rules support california boy’s theory.

The nature of other “commandments of God” differ from culture to culture, and in general can be best understood through the lens of the psychology of religion. Some commandments benefit the individuals in the group. Others benefit the group as a whole. Some help foster a sense of loyalty and belonging. Are they what people want them to be? In general, yes.

When evaluating whether “God’s commandments” are what we want them to be, it’s helpful to look at how they change within a religion. Do they change towards what we would want them to be, or do they change away from what we would want them to be?

For example, according to the word of God as canonized in Mormonism’s scriptures, if a woman has her period she is unclean and can’t attend the tabernacle. She must wait until seven days after the end of her period, and then bring two pigeons to a priest to be sacrificed. Only then is she pure and can enter the tabernacle.

So this is a serious question: is that a commandment you want to have? You don’t have to answer because of course you don’t. And guess what? Despite what the scriptures say, the Church completely ignores this commandment.

I could offer dozens of examples from the old testament, and this pattern continues through the modern Church. D&C 132 says that if a man desires to marry multiple virgins he may do so, but says if a woman has sex with another man she committed adultery and will be destroyed. Can you imagine a man wanting to receive a revelation that gives him license to marry multiple virgins if he desires to do so? Can you imagine him being jealous and wanting his wives to be faithful only to him, regardless of what she desires?

Can you imagine a later prophet recognizing that this system is untenable and wanting to receive a revelation that would make it all go away?

The vast majority of changes in the Church are in the direction of what the membership wants them to be. As a final example, consider all of the changes to the temple endowment over the course of your lifetime. How many of the changes made the temple experience less like what the membership wanted it to be like? How many of the changes made it more like what they would want it to be like? I've heard rumors that there have actually been surveys and focus groups about the temple so that they could modify it to be a better experience. Revelations from God? Or giving people the experiences they want?

In your own words, “Cumulatively speaking, the commandments dissuade us from harmful, destructive, immoral behaviors and guide us into virtuous, admirable behaviors.” Doesn’t that prove california boy’s point? Unless the membership is opposed to "virtuous, admirable behaviors," the commandments are what the membership wants them to be.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Analytics

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Yea, my prior response was a bit insolent in places and I apologize.

Thank you.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Providing a more serious answer, the question is this:

 Are “God’s commandments” what mankind wants them to be?

“God’s commandments” are a heterogeneous group of rules.

I agree.  I was speaking from a Latter-day Saint paradigm.  That makes "God's commandments" less heterogeneous, IMO.

I think the cores of most religious moral codes are quite similar to each other, but can then become differentiated substantially due to various social, political, economic and other factors.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

One subset is the “seven moral rules found around the world.” These all have one thing in common—they promote cooperation. Evolutionary psychology predicted that these seven rules would exist in all cultures, and this was shown to be true. These rules are in fact beneficial to human societies, and we evolved to know this in our gut—individuals and societies who strongly felt these moral obligations had an evolutionary advantage over those who did not. The specific rules being what they are is strong evidence that they are a product of evolution and not revelation.

The "and not revelation" doesn't follow.  Particularly given what we believe about the Light of Christ.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Commandments that align with these rules support california boy’s theory.

Doesn't seem like it.  CB's theory seemed to posit that what we call "God's commandments" are really just ad hoc preferences of individuals and groups.  Within the Latter-day Saint paradigm, that doesn't work.  

CB's theory, in your reckoning, is unfalsifiable.  "God's laws tend to be what mankind wants them to be" is incoherent because "what mankind wants them to be" is infinitely malleable.  I am pointing to commandments that A) constrain behavior "mankind" wants to do (such as indiscriminate sexual behavior), or B) induce us to act in ways we otherwise would not (missionary work, tithing, temple work, etc.).  And yet by your reckoning every constraint and every inducement can be characterized as "what mankind wants."  You do this by shifting the focus from the individual to the group and vice versa.

I reject the a priori assumption that religious commandments are merely sociopolitical powerplays.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The nature of other “commandments of God” differ from culture to culture, and in general can be best understood through the lens of the psychology of religion. Some commandments benefit the individuals in the group. Others benefit the group as a whole. Some help foster a sense of loyalty and belonging. Are they what people want them to be? In general, yes.

And are they also what people do not want them to be?  Also yes.

"Commandments of God" individuals like "help foster a sense of loyalty and belonging," thus validating CB's theory.

"Commandments of God" individuals do not like "benefit the group as a whole" and are the price we pay for living together, thus validating CB's theory.

Seems like CB's theory is unfalsifiable.  And particularly in the Latter-day Saint paradigm, I find it quite wanting.  There are plenty of things the Latter-day Saints are called upon to believe and do that I think are hard to characterize as being derived from "what mankind wants" (in the "natural man" sense).  Latter-day Saints are called upon to obey commandments that are difficult and unpopular.  Look at the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity and marriage.  It sure would seem to be easier to go along to get along, to capitulate to trendy notions about sexuality, gender, marriage, and so on.  It sure would be nice to not being endlessly disparaged and insulted.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

When evaluating whether “God’s commandments” are what we want them to be, it’s helpful to look at how they change within a religion. Do they change towards what we would want them to be, or do they change away from what we would want them to be?

Okay.  Let's look at the Church's position regarding sexuality and marriage.  Let's also look at the Church's position on The Book of Mormon.  And temple worship.  And claims of living prophets and apostles.

The Latter-day Saints are under huge social pressure, both from without and from within, to jettison or radically re-define or downgrade most or all of these things.  While the Church has refined and improved its messaging about these things, are we changing the basics?  Are we moving away from what we have traditionally believed so as to ease the social pressures on us?  To change our beliefs "towards what we would want them to be" in terms of being socially trendy/popular?

Nope.  

Are these things instead "chang{ing} away from what we would want them to be?"  

Also nope.

The fundamental doctrines and claims of the Church are remaining in place.  The Law of Chastity prohibited sex outside of marriage before the Sexual Revolution and after.  The Law of Chastity prohibited homosexual behavior before Lawrence v. Texas and after.  The Church's perspective on the novelty of same-sex marriage has been the same both prior to and since Obergefell.  Our emphasis on The Book of Mormon is as robust and emphatic as it has ever been.  The same with temples, service, missionary work, and so on.

There is a general trend these days away from organized religious.  The Church is creating more opportunity for individualistic study, but the overall perspective on God, the universe and everything remains as it always has been.  And we are as "organized" as we have ever been.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

For example, according to the word of God as canonized in Mormonism’s scriptures, if a woman has her period she is unclean and can’t attend the tabernacle. She must wait until seven days after the end of her period, and then bring two pigeons to a priest to be sacrificed. Only then is she pure and can enter the tabernacle.

So is a serious question: is that a commandment you want to have? You don’t have to answer because of course you don’t. And guess what, the Church completely ignores this commandment.

Meh.  This is unserious as it does not take into account the fulfillment of the Law of Moses.  The Church doesn't ignore the Mosaic code, it teaches that the law was fulfilled.

Now let's propose a more serious-minded question: According to the word of God as canonized in Mormonism's scriptures, Joseph Smith experienced the First Vision and various other theophanies pertaining to the Gold Plates, the translation thereof, the restoration of the Priesthood, and so on.  Folks like you widely and roundly ridicule us for believing in such things.  The same goes for our beliefs about sexual ethics and marriage.  

There are all sorts of commandments that the Saints may well not "want to have."  The constraints of the Law of Chastity.  The Law of Tithing.  The Word of Wisdom.  Missionary work.  Temple work.  All these things take huge amounts of time and money and effort.  And guess what, the Church completely continues to emphasize and endorse the commandments to do these things.

You can't have it both ways.  You can't say that commandments are merely reflective of what we "want" when so many of them are difficult and/or constrain us from doing/getting what we "want," and then turn around and say that the commandments are reflective of what society "wants."  Not only does this render CB's theory unfalsifiable (because it's proven true in every instance), it doesn't work in the Latter-day Saint paradigm.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I could offer dozens of examples from the old testament, and this pattern continues through the modern Church.

No, I don't think you could.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

D&C 132 says that if a man desires to marry multiple virgins he may do so,

When authorized, yes.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

but says if a woman has sex with another man she committed adultery and will be destroyed.

This facile stuff is getting tedious.  Sexual behavior within marriage is authorized (including polygamous marriages), whereas sexual behavior outside of marriage (adultery) is not.

Apples to oranges.  And there is no gendered exception or differentiation here.  The proscription against adultery applies equally to men and to women.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Can you imagine a man wanting to receive a revelation that gives him license to marry multiple virgins if he desires to do so? Can you imagine him being jealous and wanting his wives to be faithful only to him, regardless of what she desires?

I don't understand these questions.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Can you imagine a later prophet recognizing that this system is untenable and wanting to receive a revelation that would make it all go away?

Yes, I can imagine that.  Whether this actually happened, though...

I'm familiar with the Manifesto.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The vast majority of changes in the Church are in the direction of what the membership wants them to be.

That's a vast generalization.  I question its accuracy in many respects.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

As a final example, consider all of the changes to the temple endowment over the course of your lifetime. How many of the changes made the temple experience less like what the membership wanted it to be like? How many of the changes made it more like what they would want it to be like? I've heard rumors that there have actually been surveys and focus groups about the temple so that they could modify it to be a better experience. Revelations from God? Or giving people the experiences they want?

This only confirms what I have long surmised about our critics.  We are darned if we do, darned if we don't, darned no matter what we do.

I have no problem with the Brethren modifying the Endowment Ceremony.  

I have no problem with the Brethren seeking out input from the general membership about various aspects of the Church.

I have no problem with the Brethren being responsive to such input implementing changes in policies and practices so as to improve the experiences of the members of the Church.

You apparently have problems with all of these things.  We're darned no matter what we do.

I've previously touched on this theme here:

Quote

God also knew that His people would live in an era where substance abuse is rampant.  And yet the Word of Wisdom says nothing about marijuana, or cocaine, or meth, or heroin, or GHB, and so on.  Why weren't any of these things mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon?  Or why haven't we received a canonized revelation about these substances?

The answer, I think, may be understood by applying the principles explained by Elder Bednar in two books, "Increase in Learning" and "Act in Doctrine."  This article summarizes things this way:

Quote

 

What are Doctrines, Principles & Applications?

A few days ago, I was discussing a particular study method with a friend and one step in the process was: “identifying and understanding doctrines and principles”. So as I commonly do, I asked myself “so what’s the difference between a doctrine and a principle”. The more I thought about it, I realized that I didn’t have a clear definition for either in my mind.

I decided to go back to a book that a friend gave me for Christmas called  “Act in Doctrine” by David A. Bednar. On pages xiv-xv in the Preface he defines what doctrines and principles are and then notes a third essential element: Applications. I’ve boiled down his descriptions into the following simplified versions:

• Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
• Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
• Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

Elder Bednar points out that “Our tendency as members of the Church is to focus on applications. But as we learn to ask ourselves, ‘What doctrines and principles, if understood, would help with this challenge?’ we come to realize that the answers always are in the doctrines and principles of the gospel” (pg. xv)

Doctrines answer the question of “why” and Elder Bednar suggests that the doctrine of the Atonement explains why Jesus is our advocate with the Father. He writes that principles answer the question of “what”; some examples are repentance, baptism, service, charity, etc. Applications answer the question of “how”, and provide the specifics of how something needs to be done. While the Church does teach applications, like in the case of ordinances and administrative duties, etc., it is necessary that many applications are individually personalized to us by the Spirit.

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

To further illustrate here is  an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Doctrine":

Quote

MEANING OF DOCTRINE. The word "doctrine" in the scriptures means "a teaching" as well as "that which is taught." Most often in the Church it refers to the teachings or doctrine of Jesus Christ, understood in a rather specific sense. Scripturally, then, the term "doctrine" means the core message of Jesus Christ-that Jesus is the Messiah, the Redeemer. All other teachings are subordinate to those by which all people "know how to come unto Christ and be saved"-that is, to the "points of doctrine," such as faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. At one time, stressing the preeminence and foundational nature of this message, Jesus taught, "And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock" (3 Ne. 11:40).

With these things in mind, how should I approach the Church's various policies pertaining to same-sex attraction, same-sex behavior, same-sex marriage, etc.?  Are these policies "doctrine," "principle" or "application?"

Consider how this question is answered relative to the use of harmful, addictive, and/or mind-altering substances.  Such things are generally governed by the Word of Wisdom.  I think the Word of Wisdom is pretty clearly "doctrine."  From there, the "principles" we glean from the Word of Wisdom pertain to healthy living, abstaining from certain specified things (coffee, tea, tobacco), and so on.  The "application" of the Word of Wisdom will proscribe things like heroin and cocaine, because using such substances cannot be squared with either the "principles" or the "doctrine" arising from the Word of Wisdom.

So let's turn to the Law of Chastity.  What about pornography?  Is it specifically prohibited in scripture?  No, but using it cannot be squared with the Law of Chastity (any more than using heroin can be squared with the Word of Wisdom).  Plus it has been specifically and emphatically and repeatedly condemned by modern prophets and apostles.  So the "application" of the Law of Chastity to the viewing of pornography is fairly clear-cut, even though we're speaking of principally of "application" (of a "principle" gleaned from a "doctrine").

Turning to your question regarding LGBTQ issues, I think there are "doctrines" in play, such as the Law of Chastity and various concepts pertaining to the nature and purpose of marriage.  From these we can/should/must glean "principles," and then develop appropriate "applications."  And by "we" I mean each of us needs to act withing our sphere of influence and stewardship.  For me, that's my family.  But for the General Authorities, they have stewardship over the entirety of the Church, and hence have a greater responsibility to formulate "principles" and "applications."  This is a pretty difficult thing to do, given the state of things.  We live in an era of sexual licentiousness, increased measures of apathy and irreligiosity, hostility toward religion, and other challenges.  Nevertheless, the General Authorities have a job to do.  They have a mandate.  They cannot remain silent.  Their duty is to preach the Gospel, including those parts of it that have become socially and politically unpopular in recent years.  In this they are doing a pretty good job.  Not perfect, and certaintly with past and recent mistakes having been made, but quite admirable over all.  The opposition to their efforts is fierce and wide-ranging.

The Law of Chastity being "doctrine," what "principles" should the General Authorities develop?  What "applications"?  Again, the Brethren are working on that, and I think they are doing a good job.  And if a Latter-day Saint, acting with sincerity and in good faith, with a desire to discern and understand and submit to the will of God, studies the scriptures and the messages of modern prophets and apostles, I think he will be able, for himself, to develop "applications" based on "principles" gleaned from "doctrine."  And when this process is complete, I think such a person will find himself standing with the Brethren on this issue, and also understand the "applications" and "principles" they have developed and implemented to those within their stewardship (which is to say, the entirety of the Church).

As pertaining to the issues of homosexual conduct and same-sex marriage, I think the Brethren are presently substantially correct in doctrine, in principle, and in application.  I also believe that the counsel we have received from them is substantially (though not necessarily perfectly) in accordance with the mind and will of God.  To the extent they have implemented a particular "application" in a way that did not work, they are taking appropriate measures to resolve the issue.  By way of example, I think the 2015 policy change was a reasonable "application."  The introduction of it was not done well, though, and the opposition to it was fierce.  So the Brethren have worked to resolve the issue.  Not by abandoning doctrine, or doctrinal principles, but by changing an "application."  That is within their purview.  And I think members of the Church need to acknowledge that the Brethren have some pretty broad discretionary authority in such matters, that they are working hard to utilize that authority properly and in good faith, and that the underlying doctrines remain.  

That some disaffected members of the Church, and criticis and enemies of the Church, are opposing what the Brethren are doing may merit some additional scrutiny, but not much.  Such folks do not, in my view, generally reflect a sincere or good faith effort at understanding the LDS Church or allowing it to function under what it understands its mandate to be.  Such folks also tend to harbor criticisms of the Church that, not coincidentally, follow the whims and vagaries of popular opinion.  Such opinions are, I think, at risk of fulfilling/exemplifying Mormon 5:18.  So I'll not give such opinions much credence.

Broadly speaking, I think folks like you conflate "doctrine" with "principles" and "applications," and this conflation doesn't work, either for you or as a framework for those who, like me, actually believe in these things.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

In your own words, “Cumulatively speaking, the commandments dissuade us from harmful, destructive, immoral behaviors and guide us into virtuous, admirable behaviors.” Doesn’t that prove california boy’s point?

No.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Unless the membership is opposed to "virtuous, admirable behaviors," the commandments are what the membership wants them to be.

And yet we struggle to live up to them.  Funny, that.

And how do we account for things that are difficult and/or unpopular, such as the Word of Wisdom, the Law of Chastity, rejection of same-sex marriage, male-only priesthood ordination, and so on?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2022 by smac97