I’m excited to introduce Dr. Taylor Petry, an associate professor at Kalamazoo College, and editor for the Dialogue Journal. In this first segment, we’ll talk about how LDS leaders have changed how they talk about race issues, especially with regards to interracial marriage over the 20th century. Is this similar to possible changes regarding LGBT issues?
Taylor: The typical way that we have told the history of the priesthood ban has been primarily around focusing on race as the exclusive category. But when I started looking at the conversations that were happening and what church leaders were saying about race in the 1950s and 60s, I saw immediately that marriage was one of the big concerns. Why were they in favor of segregation? Why did they oppose civil rights? Why did they even have church policies that would prevent marriage in the temple?
Because they were really concerned about interracial sex. They thought that this was a big, big problem. We have this whole ideology about race and racialized groups, that this group was destined to do this, and this group was destined to do that. They worried that interracial mixing would dilute the sort of divine designs for those particular races. So I immediately saw that the question of race was really entwined with the with questions of sexuality. Again, as a sort of modern parallel to issues around same sex relationships today, I also wanted to show that the question of ‘who could marry who’ wasn’t just an issue that we dealt with in polygamy. It was an issue that we dealt with in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, and even up until the last decade, we still were publishing manuals that had quotes from Spencer W. Kimball discouraging interracial marriage.
So the question of who can marry who, what kinds of couples are allowed in the church, in some cases, socially, and then in some cases ecclesiastically, was not just an old question, it was a pretty new question that we’ve dealt with. So I wanted to tell the history of how we worked through that particular issue as a way, not explicitly, but a parallel to the kinds of questions that we’re dealing with [regarding] same sex relationships, too.
Of course, things have changed pretty radically with regards to interracial marriage since the 1960s.
GT: I think what was interesting to me is, especially in the ‘50s, and 60s, that interracial marriage would bring about the downfall of civilization. Now we have a black general authority, which was unheard of in the 50s and 60s. Peter Johnson is who I’m talking about, but he’s married to a white woman. And we have an apostle, [Gerrit] Gong. He’s Asian, and he has a white wife as well. So, apparently, we’ve completely changed on this issue about whether interracial marriage is a good thing. I think you also mentioned Mia Love. She’s a black Congresswoman, and she has a white husband. So, talk about how we flip from, “This is the downfall of civilization,” to totally embracing it now.
…
Taylor: Spencer W. Kimball, who had been a big advocate of the Indian Placement Program, was out there as the biggest opponent of interracial marriage. The same thing happens when we’re setting up BYU-Hawaii or whatever it was called back then, the Polynesian College.[1] I forget exactly what its name was back then. But, [you get the] same thing. You get social integration. That leads to marriages and relationships and the church is like, “Oh, this isn’t what we meant. We wanted integration, but not intermarriage.” So, there’s a lot of anxiety about that. It’s surprising that then, what are we 40-50 years later, now, General authorities who were those who were of that age when they were hearing all of these messages of: Don’t get married, don’t be involved in interracial marriages. They ignored that advice, got married anyway and now have become general authorities. So, I think that those are some really interesting ones.
The Mia Love one I found particularly interesting because it’s not just the racial boundaries that were being blurred in her case, but also she was, of course, working. She was a working mother and not only working in a high demand job, but a high demand job that often took her out of state, as well. Yet, the church didn’t seem to have any problem with it. They promoted her on the I’m a Mormon campaign. There were newspaper articles in the Deseret News, talking about her and her relationship with her husband. So I wanted to sort of trace that shift. How do we get to today where these things aren’t problematic, when they were [problematic] to the members of the 50s and 60s? If Joseph Fielding Smith were around today and saw what the makeup of the general authorities and the kinds of marriages that they were in, how many children they had, did they use birth control? All of those things he would be very confused by, because he was such a vehement opponent of those practices. So I wanted to understand, again, that these aren’t–it’s not just the change from monogamy to polygamy, that’s not the only big change that we’ve made with respect to marriage and certainly not with respect to sexuality. It’s much more recent than that, that we’ve been having this conversation inside of the church about who gets to marry who and what are the rules around that and so on.
[1] It was called Church College of Hawaii in 1955.
What are your thoughts on the changing rhetoric around interracial marriage?
Phyllis Schlafly was an important figure in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment, and she convinced LDS leaders to oppose the amendment. Dr. Taylor Petry will tell us more about how LDS messages have changed over the decades with regards to feminism and the sexual revolution.
Taylor: Phyllis Schlafly becomes the most famous anti-feminist during this time period. Schlafly is a Catholic, and she sees something that had been happening in the broader conservative religious world at the time, where there had been a backlash to the kinds of feminism that was arising. But it hadn’t really been organized as a political movement. So she sees that evangelicals and Protestant fundamentalists and even Mormons, are opposing feminism. She says we need to unite all of these people into a single coalition that will be able to speak for our values. The big issue of the time period is the Equal Rights Amendment. The Equal Rights Amendment was hugely popular among Democrats and Republicans.
All the Republicans at the outset of it passing in Congress, were ecstatic about it, and then it needs to march through the states. Immediately it’s passed by the first 32 states within the first year or something like that. That’s when the opposition really gets going. When the Stop ERA movement that Phyllis Schlafly is organizing and pulling together–all the sort of anti-feminist groups into a political coalition and the Church gets involved. [The Church] is specifically recruited by Phyllis Schlafly to get involved in this fight. [The Church] politically mobilizes, for the first time in decades at that point. The Church had not really seen itself as having a political mission. Even during ERA, at the very beginning, if you asked church leaders in the first couple of years that the ERA was a public topic, in the early 70s–the ERA had been around since the 1920s. But it really kind of gets going in the early 70s. It was supposed to be the sort of follow-up to the civil rights amendments or civil rights movements of the 1960s. So now it’s the feminists turn, so the Church gets recruited to do this and reverses itself because at first it was a no, this is a political issue. We don’t comment on political issues. We just care about moral issues, not political ones. But Phyllis Schlafly convinces the church that this is a moral issue, that it’s not just a political issue. So the Church decides to mobilize its membership in this political fight, and they start sending members to ERA conventions to shout down the leaders that are there, and to disrupt the meetings. The Church’s, nearly decade long, it lasted about eight years, fight against the Equal Rights Amendment until it was finally defeated in 1982, decisively. This was one of the major ways that the church gets involved in the anti-feminist movement.
We’ll also talk about changing attitudes with regards to birth control, and how feminism was tied to lesbians. Were you aware that Schlafly changed Kimball’s mind on the Equal Rights Amendment?
In our next conversation with Dr. Taylor Petrey, we’ll talk about Elder Oaks’ pivotal role in outlining strategy for preventing acceptance, and some accommodation, of gay rights and gay marriage. We’ll also talk about the internet rumor that the Family Proclamation was a result of the court case in Hawaii in the 1990s.
GT: As we talk about kind of the history of gay rights and that sort of thing, can you address that issue? I’ve even heard the rumor that the Proclamation on the Family was not written by the apostles. It was written by the Kirton & McConkie law firm. Can you enlighten us on that? Is that a true story?
Taylor: It may be. It may be, but the documents don’t fully support at least one iteration of that internet rumor. So let me sort of lay out the timeline a little bit, because I do think it’s important. I absolutely do think that the Proclamation on the Family is connected to what was going on in Hawaii and is connected to a broader set of conversations. So I do mention some of this in the book. But let me get into a little bit of the detail here.
…
Taylor: So the church comes out with a proclamation. It’s an affirmation of a kind of theological vision, that marriage is between a man and a woman, and it’s an explicitly political document. At the end, the last paragraph says, “We appeal to citizens and judges, and we appeal to legislatures and leaders all throughout the world…” that this is the thing that you need to make sure that basically that same sex marriage doesn’t happen. Same sex marriage and homosexuality aren’t mentioned in the document. But it’s absolutely the implicit thing, because the church is deeply embedded in what’s going on in Hawaii. Did they need to do that for some sort of legal tricky reasons? I don’t think so. But it becomes a kind of clarion call, a kind of thing that unites the church membership and says, this is our political stance. And again, we have to read it as a political document.
The other part of the context that I think needs to be understood, is that there are a number of political documents that are coming out during this exact same time period, both before and after the LDS version of the Proclamation, that are making the exact same kinds of arguments. So, Phyllis Schlafly ran something called the Eagle Forum. She was still alive, at the time, in the 1990s. She passed away, I think, maybe five or so years ago. But she was running the Eagle Forum. Then there were other conservative groups, and they all got together, and they wrote a document in 1993, I want to say, maybe it was 1989. Again, my memory is fuzzy a little bit here, called The Family Manifesto. The Family Manifesto looks exactly like what the Proclamation on the Family does, except it’s longer. I think it’s five pages or so. It says, what are the obligations of husbands and wives to each other? What are the obligations of husbands and wives to their children? What are the basic scriptural values that inform these positions?
It took a little bit more aggressive stances on issues like spousal hierarchy than the LDS version does, but it does affirm their equal dignity. Husband and wife have equal dignity before God, it says. So we still have some of that egalitarian and patriarchal tension even in a document like that. Then after that, there are other documents that look very similar to the LDS version of the Proclamation. So I also want to put the Proclamation in the context of all of these other political documents that the religious right is producing, that is sort of laying out an anti-feminist and anti-homosexuality agenda as a political thing. And again, [we should] understand the Proclamation as a political document, and to see it in conversation with all of those. Did Kirton & McConkie write it? I’ve heard that rumor, too. I don’t know. Probably they were consulted on it in some way, as many public documents are consulted with the legal teams, of course. Every institution does that.
Elder Dallin Oaks has played a pivotal role in the Church’s LGBT policy.
Taylor: There are a variety of qualifications that I’m sure that he has, but his legal expertise and his reputation outside of the church–he was a University of Chicago law professor. He had argued in front of the Supreme Court on a number of occasions. He had been on the Utah Supreme Court. His resume is unparalleled, honestly. So he has lots of qualifications. But one of the first things that he does, at least as we can near as we can tell just based on the timeline of things, is issue what’s called a white paper, a memorandum, to his colleagues that has since leaked out. I’m not the first one to talk about it. Lots of people have talked about it, so I feel comfortable, the fact that it’s a public document now, even though it was not intended originally. [It was] for private use. [I] need to talk about it as a historian. But it lays out a strategy of how the church is going to be dealing with gay rights going forward. He sees on the horizon that this is going to be the big issue. Feminism, they won. We won that. We beat ERA.
How are we going to then be really smart and strategic in opposing gay rights? Oaks had replaced Mark E. Peterson, and Mark E. Peterson was really quite conservative on gay rights issues. He was a big opponent of legalizing sodomy. So there were a bunch of anti-sodomy laws that were being repealed in the 1970s. Mark E. Peterson was out there saying, “No, no, no. We need to keep these and this is disgusting and…” This is, again, “Our civilization is going to crumble if we legalize sodomy.” Elder Oaks comes on and takes a totally different tack. He says, “Listen, sodomy, we’re not going to get involved in this anymore. It’s going to be legal. These are consenting adults.” Basically, he’s like, that’s not the issue. He says, even employment discrimination with certain exceptions, we’re not going to get involved in that. We’re not going to say that gay people can’t work anymore. He carves out some exceptions and says, maybe not in schools. We’re not going to allow them to work in schools, but we’re not going to get involved in this. Where we need to save our energy is for the coming battle on same sex marriage and he writes this in 1984, nine years before the Hawaii Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage. But he anticipates that this is going to be the thing. The reason why is because same sex marriage had been on the agenda in the 70s and 80s, among gay rights activists as well. So again, it wasn’t invented in the 1990s. It wasn’t invented in the 2000s. People were talking about this back in the 60s and 70s, and definitely in the 80s. Oaks sees. If we’re going to get involved in opposing gay rights, we need to maintain some credibility on this issue and save it for gay marriage. That’s the one thing that we really need to care about. Because if gay marriage is legalized, then it becomes socially normal to such an extent that we won’t be able to teach against it anymore. So he really anticipates exactly where we are today. You know, that…
GT: Is it prophetic?
Taylor: Probably. Yeah. He would say so, I’m sure. He has all of the same arguments; arguments that he doesn’t seem to hold today anymore, but sort of. He warns about homosexual recruitment in this document. I think his views have changed over time. I don’t want to say that what he said in 1984 is probably exactly what he thinks today. But he definitely seems to have thought a lot about this issue in anticipation of what is going to come and seems to be one of the most important figures in the church’s positions on homosexuality and same sex marriage, certainly since he became an apostle, and continues to this day to be one of the leading speakers on this topic.
What are your thoughts on Oaks’ role? Do you think LDS will eventually accommodate LGBT as they have with blacks and women?
Wheat & Tares 
In Australia, a conservative government added “between a man and a woman” to the previously inclusive definition of marriage in 2004. In 2016 the conservatives were in power again, and choose to have a postal, non compulsory vote on gay marriage. 80% of eligible voters responded, with 61.6 voting yes, and 38.4 no. Gay marriage was legalised by that conservative governmen, with the support of the opposition.
Members of the church were conspicuous in the vocal opposition (though not organised by the church).
Last Sunday on 60 minutes, there was an expose on a foul mouthed person, who attempted to overthrow the state leadership of the conservative party, and replace it with a more conservative agenda. He recruited mormons to stack branches, to achieve his ends. The church was mentioned 5 times as supporting this right wing extremist.
He has since resigned, and a couple of members of parliament are likely to go too.
So in Australia there is no major party that opposes gay marriage, but conservative members try to follow Oaks, and look more and more out of touch and irrelavent, except to damage the brand.
I thought Oaks was the only person in the April conference who mentioned the subject. This is one of the things that keeps conservative members in the Trump camp.
I do not see a God who discriminates against many of his children, women and gays, so I believe the church, and particularly Oaks, is keeping the church from coming into line with the gospel. If Oaks becomes prophet, it will be as damaging for the church, as Trump being reelected would be for America.
I see a relationship between these church position on gay marriage, and women, and members voting Trump. All part of the same disaster. What a shame a prophet could not have seen the consequence of these choices.
Super interesting – never made that connection with race (although I knew the church openly opposed interracial marriage).
I hear so many people talk about how their testimony is rooted in the Family
Proclamation because it anticipated issues no one was thinking about at the time, and is proof that prophets see into the future, and sometimes I wish they’d get a little fact check there because that’s simply historically inaccurate. I knew the proclamation was tied up with Hawaii but didn’t realize other churches / conservative groups released similar documents.
Curious what is meant by Dallin Oaks’ 1980’s thinking as “prophetic”??? I think it was good strategy but are you suggesting that his strategy was from God? On that point I would certainly have a different view. I don’t think God has anything to do with Oaks’ war against gay marriage. Oaks might think God does but at this point I think he’s blinded by decades of prejudice and couldn’t possibly admit to being wrong since he devoted his apostolic ministry, and admittedly brilliant legal mind, to fighting it. Whereas many of the rest of us have allowed our thinking to change in the last 40 years as we’ve learned more.
Rick, Is “internet rumor” a pejorative term? While it is clear that the Proclamation had its roots in matters earlier than the Hawaii same-sex marriage litigation, it is difficult to believe that its timing was unrelated to that litigation. See, e.g., the timeline set out here:
https://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/
It would seem that the Proclamation’s addressing itself to judges as well as others explicitly anticipates its use in court proceedings, as it was used in connection with the Church’s amicus brief in the second Hawaii supreme court case. (The attempt to intervene as a party rather than a friend-of-the-court in the earlier litigation was rather ill-conceived. It seems to me that, had the Proclamation then been available, it still couldn’t have justified intervention as of right. But it certainly bolstered the Church’s position in the second case.)
Did Petrey mean to discount entirely any connection between the Proclamation and the Hawaii litigation?
Elisa, I have also heard repeatedly that the “Family Proclamation … anticipated issues no one was thinking about at the time, and is proof that prophets see into the future.” No repeated pointing out of earlier same-sex marriage political and judicial activity or of the Hawaii litigation and the Church’s involvement in it has succeeded in persuading the local proponents of that mistaken concept otherwise. I’d have to look closer at the Eagle Forum and others’ “Family Manifesto,” but it would seem on the brief description here to be the “prophetic” source of the Proclamation. 🙂
While there is not much in the Proclamation that had not previously been taught by Church leaders, it did collect many of those teachings in one short document. It is, however, as far as I have found, the earliest explicit and official (Q15) denial of Joseph Fielding Smith’s opinion that gender is not eternal (the TK smoothie opinion that those in the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms are neither men nor women — published in Doctrines of Salvation, collected for publication by Bruce R. McConkie).
The Church likes to promote the idea that it is a pro-family organization…the most pro-family organization in the world because we show you how you can be together forever if you follow certain teachings. Meanwhile, the Family Proclamation has been used to marginalize all kinds of people in the Church who don’t follow the script (gays, etc.). Maybe the Church will continue to have success promoting itself as a pro-family organization . But what I’m seeing is an organization that is known more and more as exclusionary and we are living in an era in which inclusion is a top 2 or 3 value. The “sad heaven” messaging just doesn’t appeal to people the way it once did. And it makes some of us wonder whether we (LDS) are really as pro-family as we claim to be.
“Do you think LDS will eventually accommodate LGBT as they have with blacks and women?”
Sometimes the term “accommodate” is used condescending, so I decided to get some definitions to start:
To provide something desired, needed, or suited
To do a favor to, oblige
To adjust to someone else’s needs
To adapt oneself, become adjusted
Refusal to accommodate is really a reflection that one does not value the desires and needs of those requesting accommodation or that the “cost” of the accommodation is something they aren’t willing to pay.
LDS accommodations to Blacks and Women were a political necessity in society at large as well as to honor the sensibilities of the majority of its members. It was also the right thing to do. What the relative weight given to the reasons is something we may never know – but the cost/benefit ratio eventually tipped that way.
For the same reasons, the needs and desires of LGBT+ members will one day be accommodated.
That’s easy for me to say because I do not believe that the traditional role of women and the priesthood/temple ban for Blacks were not of God. They were both man-made concepts. I think the same of the current LGBT+ stances.
“What are your thoughts on Oaks’ role? “
He is definitely the right man for the job. Or perhaps better stated, he’s the right man for the wrong job. He is definitely the church’s well-qualified pitbull on LGBT+ and related religious freedoms issues. With his seniority in the quorum and 1st presidency position, I doubt there is much opposition. There are two or three less senior apostles that will have to go the way of all the earth before we will see any desire on leadership’s part to make meaningful accommodation for same-sex marriage and transgender members.
Was Oak’s prophetic in seeing these issues coming? Yes – along with tens of thousands of other ordinary citizens. Maybe God does have to speak to LDS leaders to get their attention (spiritually smack them upside the head) and get them on the path that is so obvious to those that don’t cling so tenaciously to (false?) traditions.
Edit – I had one too many “nots” in this sentence – please remove either one for my real intent.
That’s easy for me to say because I do *not* believe that the traditional role of women and the priesthood/temple ban for Blacks were *not* of God. They were both man-made concepts. I think the same of the current LGBT+ stances.
Elisa & Wondering,
I provided links to the video so you can hear voice inflections regarding “prophetic” and “internet rumor.” I think it is self-evident if you want to hear it in context.
Full inclusion of LGBT will be necessary eventually if the LDS church wants to remain even borderline relevant. This means re-thinking temple ordinances. As long as LGBT cannot participate in temple ceremonies they will be 2nd class citizens in the LDS church.
If you press me to predict when that will happen, it probably won’t until Bednar has passed and is no longer in the Q15.
If Oaks becomes President of the church, I think he’ll eventually be viewed as a blip, similar to Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B Lee.
@Rick B thank you – definitely cleared things up.
I suppose if he were actually prophetic he’d have seen that this was a battle the church would not win. (Then again if he were actually prophetic maybe he’d have called the church to repentance for marginalizing and mistreating gay people rather than furthering the church’s anti-gay agenda, and functioned more like a special witness of Christ than a calculating legal strategist.)
It’s pretty disheartening to realize that the only reason the church plays nice when it comes to certain gay rights issues is so that it can maintain “credibility” on the issue of gay marriage. It has absolutely nothing to do with actually loving or respecting gay people. It’s a legal and political strategy.
@Toad I disagree Oaks will be viewed as a blip. I think he will be viewed as a disaster for the church.
Since I’m recently out of the closet after a 21 year mixed orientation marriage, I hope the church comes around on its treatment of LGB members. (I hope it comes around on T members too but admit I’m more skeptical on that one until society comes around more… society will get there… before the church.) Unfortunately the church has a $100bn war chest. If it decides to keep gay marriage a red line, it can last a very long time as an increasingly irrelevant religion.
Elisa, as someone who was at BYU during the LGBTQ witch-hunt during the latter part of Oaks’s tenure I’m with you in thinking that his time as a prophet would be a full on disaster. His hatred towards this group of people has only seemed to grow since that time, and that breaks my heart.
I am sorry, but the church will never accommodate homosexuality. The very idea is counter to everything that the church has taught from the days of Adam. God cannot change, nor do his words fall to the ground, and God has declared it to be a sin and an abomination.
Comparing this to race or feminism is a a false. Comparison. The restrictions on the African race (not black, by the way) were known to be temporary and the change was looked for by all the prophets and faithful members, thus no doctrine ever changed on this point. With women, the cultural expectations may have changed, but the doctrine has not changed in any way.
To accommodate homosexuals would require a fundamental change in the very truths that the church teaches; it requires the denial of God’s words. That is not something the church is ever going to do.
It seem that people here are treating the church like a social club that just needs to get with the times, rather than a divine organization that is led of Christ and directed by actual prophets that speak the will and mind of the Lord.
Personally, I don’t want to be relevant in this world of moral decay and political corruption, and I am very glad that the church is standing against the trends of the world. Soon Zion will rise and then nothing else will be relevant, for all the decay and corruption of the world will be purged.
@Shematwater, I don’t expect anything said here will change your mind but your is a totally inaccurate view of the history of the church’s teachings on gender and sexuality.
A great starting place for a more comprehensive view is here:
https://mormonlgbtquestions.com/2017/03/17/what-do-we-know-of-gods-will-for-his-lgbt-children-an-examination-of-the-lds-churchs-position-on-homosexuality/
Thanks, Rick. I’ve now had a chance to listen and learn that there are several different “internet rumors” about the connection between the Hawaii litigation and the Proclamation
I was surprised by what I heard about the 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision. As I have read the opinions, that court did not determine that same sex marriage was legal and then “stay” the application of that decision. Instead, 2 of 5 judges decided that the Hawaii equal protection clause required a “strict scrutiny” and finding a “compelling state interest” in denying same-sex marriage licenses and reversed the lower court’s dismissal on the pleadings (without evidence). A third judge concurred in the reversal and in sending the matter back to the lower court, but for a different reason. (A fourth wrote a dissenting opinion; the fifth did not subscribe to any of the opinions.) There was no decision then that same sex marriage was legal; there was no stay of such a decision. There was instead a remand to the lower court for an evidentiary hearing.
Maybe I misheard Petrey. Maybe he misunderstood or misspoke about the legal proceedings.
@shematwater, It seems a bit presumptuous for us to claim we know what has been taught “from the days of Adam”. As Elisha said, I’m dubious anything I write will change your opinion. However if you are open to learning and potentially evolving on this topic doctrinally, may I suggest you ponder and pray about how the Episcopalians came to read the Bible’s view on homosexuality.
Click to access ToSetOurHope_eng.pdf
Apparently the link I posted was broken. Thanks to the waybackmachine here’s one that hopefully works:
Click to access ToSetOurHope_eng.pdf
Third time’s the charm?
Click to access sethope.pdf
I give up. Google “to set our hope on christ” episcopal church. The first link is the broken one, but the third link works
MTodd, I think the google search brings up links in a different order for me than it did for you. I found that this one works for me: https://allsaints-pas.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/sethope.pdf
The 135page book is also available in paperback from Amazon.
MTODD: Why would I care how an apostate religion interprets scripture? We have actual prophets to tell us these things, and they have been clear and consistent on the subject from the beginning. And I am not presuming to know anything. I know this because the prophets have told us this; both ancient and modern.
Elisa: The church has changed the way it speaks on the subject, but they have never once changed the doctrine that underlies everything they have said. The change in language, despite what some may think, is not a change in the position of the church, but rather a reaction to the changes in society.
For instance, the warnings that improper relations in a family can lead to improper behavior (quoted in your link) changed to not blaming the parents largely because the wider culture is far more permeated with this moral decay than it was at that time. The warning still stands, and is valid. However, with so many other influences in the modern day (especially with the internet), it is very possible for parents to show proper love and affection and still have their children succumb to the allurements of modern philosophies.
A change in society has thus led to a change in approach, but not in doctrine.
shematwater, while I understand your position (I’ve held it myself) on the idea that doctrine doesn’t change, the doctrine of the Church has changed many, many times. Might I suggest the book “This is My Doctrine” by Charles R. Harrell as an excellent place to start. To name perhaps the most significant: the nature of God and the Godhead has changed drastically from Early Joesph Smith to now. Almost all of the doctrines of the church, in fact, have evolved greatly since first set down. It’s best to make peace with that and find a way to stay firm than stand on such shaky ground. Especially if you have any young children that you want to remain in the church, I strongly suggest you spend some time with these matters. Best of luck on your journey.
Charlie Harrell’s book is great. I will also add this quote from my interview with Dr. Greg Prince.
This difference between policy and doctrine is mostly semantics. I can quote you lots of quotes from Brigham Young to Mark Peterson to Harold B. Lee saying that the “doctrine” that blacks were cursed would never change, until it changed in 1978. In 1949, the First Presidency declared it doctrine, and in 1955, Pres McKay called it policy, and through the 1960s, apostles quarreled over whether the black policy was doctrine or policy. See my interviews with Dr. Matt Harris on that. I’ve got several. Matt goes into much greater detail on this policy/doctrine debate that Petrey did. See https://gospeltangents.com/category/matt-harris/
Charlie Harrell’s book is excellent. I highly recommend it. I also want to add this quote from Dr. Greg Prince.
I will also add that in 1949, the First Presidency declared the priesthood ban “doctrine”, but a few years later, Pres McKay called it policy in 1955. The 1960s were full of strife between apostles arguing about whether it was doctrine or policy, and Dr. Matt Harris has shown that people like Brigham Young, Mark Peterson, and Harold B. Lee argued the black ban would never be changed, while Hugh B Brown, McKay, and Kimball obviously felt a change as possible. So I would be careful with your pronouncements. A Church of revelation can change any policy at any time–that’s what revelation means. I recommend you check out my interviews with Dr. Harris if you want more details on the tumultuous 1960s and how the apostle wrestled with each other, the federal government and pressure in and outside the church. See https://gospeltangents.com/category/matt-harris/
“Doctrine doesn’t change” is not an observation, it rule, it is a measuring stick. If something changes, then it violates the rule and can therefore be declared that it wasn’t ever doctrine. Useful rule, if not self-deceiving.
@Shematwater, thank you for engaging. I agree with the other commenters who have pointed out many “doctrinal” changes over time (and times when what was once “doctrine” is re-labeled as “policy” to justify a change). Clearly, the church’s position on marriage has changed if you believe that polygamy in Joseph Smith’s time was ordained by God and is now condemned. It’s strange to me that this is even up for debate given that history. I also tend to rely on the New Testament here and note that Jesus really did not remotely care about sexual orientation, so I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that this has been taught since the dawn of time.
If nothing else, I think Bryce Cook’s article (which I posted) is an essential read because it presents some of the very real, negative impacts that the church’s campaign against gay people and gay marriage has had on real, live human beings. I believe that any church member who wants to defend the church’s position has a moral obligation to learn about — to bear witness of — the very real damage that position has on our LGBT brothers and sisters, and mourn with them. If you continue to preach that gay marriage is a sin and that homosexuality is just a sign of society’s moral decay, that’s your prerogative, but I would encourage you to at least spend some time listening to gay people with an open heart so that you know what their lives and hearts are like and can see more clearly the fruits that the church’s war against them have borne. It’ll be yours to judge if you think those fruits are good or rotten; while you see same-sex marriage as a sign of moral decay, I see society’s increasing love for and acceptance of all human beings as a sign of Zion.
[apologies is this is a duplicate! site crashed]
@Shematwater, thank you for engaging. I agree with the other commenters who have pointed out many “doctrinal” changes over time (and times when what was once “doctrine” is re-labeled as “policy” to justify a change). Clearly, the church’s position on marriage has changed if you believe that polygamy in Joseph Smith’s time was ordained by God and is now condemned. It’s strange to me that this is even up for debate given that history. I also tend to rely on the New Testament here and note that Jesus really did not remotely care about sexual orientation, so I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that this has been taught since the dawn of time.
If nothing else, I think Bryce Cook’s article (which I posted) is an essential read because it presents some of the very real, negative impacts that the church’s campaign against gay people and gay marriage has had on real, live human beings. I believe that any church member who wants to defend the church’s position has a moral obligation to learn about — to bear witness of — the very real damage that position has on our LGBT brothers and sisters, and mourn with them. If you continue to preach that gay marriage is a sin and that homosexuality is just a sign of society’s moral decay, that’s your prerogative, but I would encourage you to at least spend some time listening to gay people with an open heart so that you know what their lives and hearts are like and can see more clearly the fruits that the church’s war against them have borne. It’ll be yours to judge if you think those fruits are good or rotten; while you see same-sex marriage as a sign of moral decay, I see society’s increasing love for and acceptance of all human beings as a sign of Zion.
I have thought long and hard about how to respond, and I hope that I may do so now in an uplifting manner.
First, I stand by what I said: doctrine does not change. Policy and even commandments can and do change, but doctrine does not. However, we have not always had a full and complete understanding of doctrine, as God reveals line upon line, here a little and there a little. For instance, in the early church the doctrine stated that Christ preached to the spirits in prison. Peter, in the New Testament, makes this clear. But it was not until 1917 and the vision of Joseph F. Smith that we understood exactly how this was done. When that was given it did not alter the doctrine of the spirit prison or the doctrine that Christ preached to those who were there. It simply gave further knowledge and clarity that was not had before.
An example of changing commandments is that of the Word of Wisdom. The underlying doctrine is healthy living and respect for the body that God created. But in the Old Testament there is a list of things that are unclean for eating, which includes pigs. Today there is no prohibition on eating pigs. Today we have the Word of Wisdom. Both commandments are based on the same underlying doctrine, but each was given for the people of different periods and places. Also, in the early church the Word of Wisdom was not enforced as a requirement for temple attendance, but later became so as the people progressed. The commandment and the policy surrounding the doctrine changed, but the doctrine itself did not.
Rick brings up the priesthood restriction. I have actually done a lot of reading on this subject, and again I find no alteration in the underlying doctrine. I do find that many prophets made statements based on a level of understanding that was incomplete, but as soon as greater knowledge was revealed from heaven they brought their ideas into alignment with that greater knowledge. But even that did not change the underlying doctrine.
I will admit that I have, in the past, seen things that appeared to show a change in doctrine. However, after much study and prayer I have always found that such perceptions have always come from a false understanding on my part, and when I truly come to know the doctrine I see that there is no change. The only change is in how I perceive the doctrine; which is also the only change that can be shown in the historical documents. The members have not always had the proper perceptions, but when God has clarified the truth of the doctrine and its unchanging nature has always been made clear.
A few direct mentions –
Brian
I do not have time to read the book, as there are far more important works that I need to devote my time to right now. I have looked at some reviews and read some shorter works by the author to at least become familiar with it. I have heard most of these arguments before in one form or another and have always found them wanting. In general I find that they attempt to approach the scriptures and the words of the prophets from a false perspective. As Joseph Smith once said, if we start right it is easy to stay right, but if we start wrong it may be very difficult to get right again (paraphrased from memory). I do not think that the author is starting in the right place, and as a result his work is going to continue to go wrong.
If Rick is quoting the book in reference to the various accounts of the first vision than this because a perfect example of this. The claim that these accounts reflect changes in doctrine is only founded if you start with the assumption that doctrines have changed. If you start with that assumption it is easy to see these as changes. But that is not what I see. I see different accounts that simply focus on different details as he spoke for different purposes and to different audiences. None of the accounts contradict each other (except in recalling how old Joseph was at the time, which is a reasonable error on his part), but simply give further details and clarification as to the specifics of the event. But, as I say, if you are looking for changes in the doctrine it is easy to take these accounts and say that because different details are given they must represent a change in beliefs. I do not buy that argument.
BDB
You characterize my statement. You turn it around, which I never did. I do not hold this as a measuring stick to say “If it changed it was never doctrine.” I say doctrine does not change, and if I perceive a change than it is incumbent on me to find out why. Most often this is a result of me not understanding the doctrine properly in the first place.
But this also means that I must be very careful as to what I call doctrine in the first place. When I read the words of the prophets I must keep my mind alert to the many cues and clues that can be given to show that something is not doctrine, while other things are.
For instance, Brigham Young once stated his belief that there was life on the moon and the sun. Yet in stating this he clearly uses words such as think, or believe. The only definite statement he makes is that they were not created in vain. He also alludes to the idea that the life that is there is not mortal life. So in reading this statement what do I take as doctrine and what do I take as his opinion. I take the definite statement as doctrine: they were not created in vain. Everything else, having been qualified as his thoughts and beliefs, is not doctrine and should not be considered to be so.
There was a time in the past when I might have assumed all that he said was doctrine, but I have learned to be cautious and to take only what is definite as doctrine.
Elisa
There is no change when it comes to Plural Marriage, except in policy. Plural Marriage has been part of the gospel from the beginning, but has been a practice that the Lord has always held in reserve, to be lived only when He commands. To live it without his authorization is a sin. This is made clear in Jacob 2: 28-30. So instituting it and revoking it makes no change in the doctrine, because such is part of the doctrine.
As to the New Testament, where if your evidence that Jesus didn’t care? Is it the fact that he does not address it directly? Because that is proof of nothing. We have very little of Christ’s words, as John informs us. However, in every instance in which Christ speaks of marriage, it is always a man and women, such as Matthew 19: 5-6, and Mark 10: 8-9. Never in any of the scriptures is marriage ever once spoken of as being anything other than a man and a woman. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11: 11, tells us that “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” In D&C 132 the New and Everlasting covenant is described as a man and a woman entering into marriage. Multiple times in the scriptures the act of homosexual behavior is condemned as unnatural and an abomination.
Now, I am not blind to the suffering and struggles of those who endure these temptations. It is a struggle for them, and I pray they will meet those trials with faith and courage. But it does not change the truth. The act is an abomination before God, and those who willfully engage in it, or encourage others to do so, will have to face the judgment of God in the end. They will struggle in this life, and they will suffer, and for that I pity them. But it is better that they deal with it in this life than deal with it throughout eternity.
And yes, I see the acceptance of any sin as a sign of moral decay. We can love our fellow men and not be accepting when they make bad choices. Remember the woman taken in adultery: Christ did not immediately condemn her, but nor did He declare her sins forgiven. Rather, in His infinite love for her He admonished “Go and sin no more.” God does not love anyone any less because they violate His law and commit sin of any kind. But neither does He excuse or accept their actions. Following his example I will repeat what He has said and admonish with sincere love all those who commit sin to ‘go and sin no more.’
@shematwater, as a gay man in a mixed orientation marriage for 21 years, for years I defended the church’s position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage thinking it was God inspired. Then the 2015 Exclusion Policy happened and I asked myself, “Is this really from God?” It made me question everything.
Since leaving the church, I have learned that I’m not special (at least not in the way I thought I was as a member of the church) and that’s ok. I’m just like everyone else. My love for my fellow humans has grown immensely. It’s been great receiving the health benefits of drinking coffee and tea. Flirting with other men, I have experienced the most amazing emotions, feelings I shouldn’t have had to wait until I was in my 40s to taste. (And my wife has the chance at finding a man who values her in ways that I have never been able to appreciate her.)
The church teaches wickedness never was happiness; if I’m happy now, happy in ways I’ve never been before, is this really wickedness? I know the faithful answer is that one day I’ll experience unhappiness for my actions, but for now, I’m content being happy today.
I feel I need to clarify one point that I did not touch on quite properly.
Doctrine is first and foremost established in the Standard Works. This is why they are called the Standard Works, for they are the standard by which all else is judged. Any statement that directly contradicts the scriptures, regardless of who made it, cannot be doctrine and should be rejected. This applies to all things, regardless of when they were said. The Standard Works are direct revelation from God, and are given to establish His gospel.
Thus, the various statements made by leaders about the priesthood ban and the African Race, if they are in contradiction with the Standard Works, should be rejected as error. Before the revelation in 1978 was received many of these statements were not in contradiction, and thus they could be accepted. But once that revelation was given we had further direct communication from God. Thus any statements made previously that are in opposition to that revelation are rejected.
There are times, however, when statements are made that are not in opposition to the Standard Works, and those are the ones that we must be cautious about and discern whether they are statements of doctrine or statements of opinion, as I detailed in my previous comment.
However, doctrine does not change. A perceived change most often is the result of our lack of understanding. We are missing some information that will harmonize things and bring us greater understanding.
The only time we can declare something to be wrong is if God has declared in direct revelation to the prophet that it was wrong, such as in the 1978 revelation on the priesthood. In that God made clear that many statements made in the past were in error. But before that the members had no authority to declare anything the prophets said as being wrong, and some were even excommunicated for presuming to do so.
So, doctrine does not change; only our understanding of it does as our minds are enlightened and our knowledge increased.
MTodd
Yes it is wickedness. And you may deride the truth all you want, but it changes nothing. What you call the ‘faithful answer’ is the truth. Many in this life seek and find pleasure in sin. Many enjoy this life to a great extent, even more so than many of the faithful followers of Christ. But the judgment is coming, and those who embrace wickedness will feel the suffering of a damned soul in eternity.
If that is your choice I support you in making it, as long as it does not do harm to others. Have your joys of mortal life, and live how you would choose to live. I will not deny you that right. But I will not condone your choices as good, nor will I pretend that the final outcome will be one of joy for you. But you will receive what you have sought for in this life. You will just have to live for eternity knowing that you could have had so much more.
“doctrine does not change; only our understanding of it does”
This is pretty much the only thing I can agree with shematwater. It is deliciously ironic that he thinks he has complete understanding on this issue. I did not find your comments uplifting at all, but rather full of bigotry. It’s time to start selling understanding that you erroneously think you already possess.
Shematwater, you must understand that to claim that doctrine doesn’t change, only our understanding of it, and thus our explanation and declaration of it, is nonsense. It means that ‘doctrine’ as you are using it doesn’t mean anything practically. According to your own definitions, doctrine doesn’t mean anything tangible, only theoretical.
Also, shemwater, I long believed exactly what you’re claiming. However, let’s not play games here. If you are using the standard works as your guide to doctrine, you surely see that what is says about the godhead is completely evolving, contradictory at times, and serves in no way as a guide to understanding. The same goes for things like the ‘doctrine’ of the family. But, of course, it’s the sort of the position many leaders are pushing, so I get your initial reaction to refuse to embrace the factual situation at hand, but this is why I said earlier that if you have children still under your care, you should seriously reconsider what your position. In today’s world, with access to more information than ever before, such naive positions won’t help anyone in the long run. I know, most of the people I know who have left, including siblings, left precisely because they were taught the same simplistic ideas that you’re now embracing. The institutional church knows this and is attempting to assuage the problem with their topical essays. At least, that’s the charitable reading of those essays.
Brian
I have never found a single contradiction within the Standard Works. At times I have found myself unable to fully understand a particular passage, but with patience, study, and prayer I have always found understanding.
And when I speak of our understanding, I am not speaking the church; at least not primarily. I am speaking of individuals. We, as individuals, frequently fail to understand doctrine and our perceptions need to be aligned to the truths of the gospel.
The three sources that God has given us to determine doctrine are the scriptures, the prophets, and personal revelation. There is no other source from which we can learn doctrine, and this is the order in which they should be placed for consideration. We study and ponder the first two, and then seek for confirmation or understanding through the third.
Now, it has happened that the prophets have been wrong, as Elder Utchdorf has stated. But we, as lay members, have no authority to correct them, and when we seek to we put ourselves at odds with God. If they need to be corrected He will correct them, and He will do it publicly, not privately to individuals. This has happened on rare occasions, and never in direct statements of doctrine, especially those made by the President of the church. Once a man has been anointed to that calling I have never once found an error in their words, only in my understanding of them.
So, to put it more simply: God reveals doctrine to the prophets. The prophets then record and teach that doctrine. What they teach as revealed doctrine is true and unchanging, and all we have to do is seek to understand it. If we see an apparent change or contradiction in the words of the prophets than the fault is in us, not in them, and we need to strive to correct our understanding.
Shem, to put it more simply: you are mistaken. It appears to be naively so, however. So perhaps it’s best to leave it alone. You seem sincere in relation to the gospel, though I’m not so sure about the real intent (in regards to actually figuring this out). And since it seems like you’ve already closed the door on more knowledge in regards to this issue, I hope your sincerity is enough to get you and those around you through.
What is the doctrine that excludes gay marriage? All are alike unto God I understand. That there is marriage between men and women. But saying there is marriage between men and woman does not say there can not be gay marriage too.
What doctrine has to change? Is it doctrine or just tradition, and Oaks? No one else but him mentioned it in April.
In Utah, and Trumps america there may not be pressure to change, but in the rest of the first world opposing gay marriage is in the same league as racism, or sexism.
@shematwater, I noticed you changed my “happiness” to “pleasure” as if you don’t want to admit that I be finding happiness. It’s a rhetorical trick I played on myself when I was an active member. “I shouldn’t give in to my homosexuality because it’s just a desire for pleasure; loving men wont bring me happiness.” But now that I have admitted I’m gay and have started chatting with guys I find attractive, I realize I am happy in a way I wasn’t before. Now I just need to find a goofy, dorky, nerdy, gay guy I find super attractive who wants to be my partner in crime
Elephant in the room is that I think the whole idea of “doctrine” is totally pointless. Doctrine is just as manmade as any policy. May be inspired, may not be, seems we just call stuff “doctrine” when we want to end a discussion.
@MTodd – rooting for you on your search for a partner in crime! Appreciate your perspective.
“doctrine” — English definitions include: “a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group” and “something that is taught.”
I wonder if we’re seeing some special Mormon-speak use of the English word here, at least from shematwater. Sometimes in Mormon-speak it seems to mean “whatever limited teachings of Church leaders that have in fact never changed”. There may not be much of that!
Geoff
The doctrine of marriage, family and exaltation. The very purpose of the gospel, and marriage specifically, is to procreate, producing and raising a family. Without that capability there is no exaltation in heaven. As such, no same-sex marriage can bring people to exaltation. In order to allow same-sex marriage the very foundation of the gospel has to be shifted away from procreation.
Paul teaches “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11: 11). Peter teaches that husband and wife are “heirs together of the grace of life.” (1 Peter 3: 7).
A man cannot be exalted without a wife, and a woman cannot be exalted without a husband.
Elisa
If that is true that nothing really matters, does it. It is all dependent on how people feel at the time. God becomes meaningless as a man-made construct and can be changed at a whim. If nothing is unchanging than everything is meaningless, and that is something I refuse to believe.
MTodd
I also used the word joy. In fact, I used it more often than please. Take it as you want. The words are practically interchangeable in the modern day.
Brian
Think what you want. It has been nice discussing this with you. You call me naive for holding the view that doctrine is unchanging and that if we follow the prophets than our eternal destiny is secure. Personally, I think it very arrogant to think that you can correct the prophets.
But in the end it is nice to leave on amicable terms and I will leave it at this, with good wishes and prayers for you in your pursuits of life.
Shem, I never said anything about you being naive for believing the idea that if “we follow the prophets than our eternal is secure.”
Shem, Thanks for explaining why you believe gay people can’t be exalted.
Heres my problem with your thinking. About 6% of straight marriages are unable to produce children.
There are more women than men in the church, so some women are not going to have children. I have a daughter in her 40s who is single, would love to be married, but never happened.
Then God creates 5% of people gay. So there are straight marriages that can’t produce children, and single women unable to have children, many gay families have children, either adopted, or by ai or some other technology, that straight people also use.
I am not aware of any scripture that says you have to produce children on this earth to be eligible for exaltation. And we don’t hnow how spirit children are produced. Is there such scripture?
We do have scripture that it is Gods work and glory to bring his children to exaltation. I have faith he can do it.
So it appeares you have created, in your mind, a hurdle that excludes gay marriage from exaltation. It also excludes even more straight people. The scriptures you quote say a man and a woman should be married, and that does not say a gay couple should not also be married, as is apropriate for them, and in my mind would be saying they should be too.
I am confident that God can exalt all the children he creates. I think we are on thin ice excluding people for who they are, when there is no scripture, or revelation to back us up.
So I will continue to look forward to the time, hopefully not far away, when the church leaders, will include gay members fully.
Not sure this is at all convincing to you, but prrhaps you can be less forcefull knowing why you are on thin ice?
As a general rule, I try to not give more forum space and attention to commenters whose intent seems to be to troll or to preach from the pedestal they’ve hoisted themselves upon. A couple have shown up here lately.
I would like to say that I wish them an easy path. I am happy for them that their explanations work for them. If, however, they come to have life experiences that leave them with heart and cognitive dissonance that they can no longer twist themselves into knots to explain away, then I offer them the best starting place I found: to be able to say, “I don’t know”.
Perhaps that is the basest form of abasing ourselves that the scriptures teach.
Geoff
First, I never once said anything about procreating in this life. I spoke of exaltation. The scriptures say that a man cannot be exalted without a wife, nor a wife without a husband. This is a fundamental doctrine of the church. What exalts a person is the power to procreate, which can only be done between a man and woman. And yes, that is true in the eternities. The prophets have also made that clear. This is the reason we cannot be exalted without marriage; for only in marriage can the power of procreation be lawfully used, and thus in the resurrection the only ones that will have that power are those who are married.
I am fully aware that many women and men cannot, for whatever reason, have children in this life. But this life is only a shadow of what is to come. We live in a fallen world, but all things that exist in this life will exist in exaltation, but in perfect and unblemished form. That means that all those who are exalted will be able to have children, for the power of procreation will be perfected, just as everything else will.
And I reject the idea that God made anyone gay. I don’t believe it.
Sasso
I am always willing to admit when I don’t know something. But it is not humility to deny knowledge that you have, and I won’t do it. And I think this topic is significant enough that I need to speak up whenever possible.
Now, the original post asked a question. If all they wanted was affirmation of their own opinion they could have said that. They didn’t. They asked a question, and all I did was answer it.
Brian
Yeah, you did. What I have been saying is that we need to allow the prophets to disseminate doctrine and our job is to learn it and live my it. You say I am naively mistaken in this, and thus you are saying that it is naive to think that following the prophets will secure my eternal salvation. That is simply a logical conclusion of what you have said.
Shem, I did not say that. Please don’t put words in my mouth. You are seriously projecting stuff onto other people and it’s most offensive and wrong. I can’t believe your arguments have turned into a “Yes you did” claim when the evidence before everyone is on the page. You are ruined any good graces you one had here and are instead looking more and more like a recalcitrant troll who is more interested in fighting that having a discussion.
Brian
Then explain to me what I am naive about, because that is what I see in your words. As I said, it is the logical conclusion, not what you literally said. In other words, if I were to take what you said and following the reasoning in a logical fashion the conclusion is that it is naive to follow the prophets.
You make comments such as “But, of course, it’s the sort of the position many leaders are pushing, so I get your initial reaction to refuse to embrace the factual situation at hand” and that “The institutional church knows this and is attempting to assuage the problem with their topical essays. At least, that’s the charitable reading of those essays.”
When I reply by stating that it is to the scriptures and prophets that we must turn for doctrine and that it is our responsibility to seek to align ourselves with that doctrine, you tell me I am naively mistaken.
So, again, what am I mistaken about? Am I mistaken is stating that the scriptures and prophets are the source of doctrine, or that we need to align ourselves to the doctrine that they teach. Either way you are saying I am naively mistaken in my statement that we need to follow the prophets.
And if you are simply trying to claim that all you said is that I am naive in claiming doctrine doesn’t change, then it still means the same thing. If the prophets teach us that doctrine is unchanging (as they do) and I am naive in believing that it doesn’t change, than I am naive in following the prophets in that belief.
So I stand by my statement, though I deny being a troll.
No, you have not made the statement that I am naively mistaken that following the prophets with secure my eternal welfare. However, I see no way to take the statements you have made and not reach the conclusion that that is what you meant.
And, as you seem to have been in agreement with everyone else posting, even given the number of statements that directly disparage some of the prophets and what they teach, I think I am justified in my conclusion.
As to being more interested in fighting, you were the first to make personal comments and call into question my motivations and desires. So don’t try to claim that I am the one that is combative or recalcitrant. I was not the first to demonstrate obstinate or uncooperative attitudes here.
Shem, you write ” No, you have not made the statement that I am naively mistaken that following the prophets with secure my eternal welfare. However, I see no way to take the statements you have made and not reach the conclusion that that is what you meant.” This is the problem.
I suggest that doctrine changes. You refuse that claim. I, and others, suggest several instances of where it has changed. Then, you write, “You call me naive for holding the view that doctrine is unchanging and that if we follow the prophets than our eternal destiny is secure.” The first part is true, I am claiming that you are naive for holding the view that doctrine is unchanging. I say nothing about the latter part.
Even after reading your comments several times, I still don’t see how you leap to the conclusions that you do. You say that, “as [I] seem to have been in agreement with everyone else posting” then I claim the same things they do. That, my friend, is very poor logic and you are definitely not justified in your conclusion. I can say that the sky is blue. Donald Trump can say the sky is blue. So can every one else. That doesn’t mean I believe everything else you, or Donald Trump, or some random person in the same room who also said the sky is blue believes–even in relation to what else they might say about the sky. Logic doesn’t work that way.
Have a nice day!
Brian
You continue to obfuscate your own comments. You made the claim that what I am saying is “the sort of the position many leaders are pushing” but that I should not follow those leaders because they are wrong and you are right.
So, if the the prophet has taught that doctrine does not change, than you are telling me not to follow the prophet.
Regarding prophets I made the following statement: “What they teach as revealed doctrine is true and unchanging, and all we have to do is seek to understand it. If we see an apparent change or contradiction in the words of the prophets than the fault is in us, not in them, and we need to strive to correct our understanding.” This comment was made as summation of a more detailed explanation of how and why we need to follow the prophets and align ourselves to what they teach.
In direct reply to this you stated that I was naively mistaken. As I was stating our need to follow the prophets, than that is what I have to be mistaken about, according to your statement.
As to the association with the rest of the comments here, what I said is perfectly logical. The general theme of this thread has been that we don’t really need to follow the prophets because they are frequently wrong and the church is always changing, making past (and even current prophets) irrelevant. I replied to this with the assertion that doctrine does not change and we should indeed follow the prophets.
Now, while all your comments have been directed at me, and have focused solely on the claim of changing doctrine, they have followed this same basic theme, and from the examples that I have given it seems clear that you agree with the general premise of the original post and the various comments that have been made in support of it. Also, if you had any disagreements with the rest of the comments, then why have you only spoken out against what I have said, without making any mention of anything else that is said.
So my logic is not as you claim, and it is not flawed. If I am wrong, then let me know what in the comments of other you disagree with.
Ok you two. Break it up. This is the definition of beating a dead horse.