clbent04

I'm not saying any of the prophets made an error regarding the priesthood ban. I'm saying God would have preferred if society was righteous enough to where the ban wasn't necessary, but unfortunately it was. If God condones something like the priesthood ban, do you think it's possible for the Holy Spirit to testify to a prophet to implement even if it creates a detour in our path to eternal life? My point is, sometimes the detours are necessary for the stubborn likes of us. Despite being a detour, the Holy Spirit can testify it's the will of God as the most effective path for us to take for our development. After all, how many of us have been obedient and smart enough to take the beeline to eternal life?

Who's to say the priesthood ban on blacks and slavery weren't allowed for the same reason? Could it be God never wanted the priesthood ban on blacks, but He allowed it to happen as a result of where society was?

A testimony with solid footing is one that cannot be destroyed regarding subjective issues. When is the mantle officially invoked by a prophet? How do we know he is speaking as a man versus in an official capacity. It's largely subjective. There's no clear-cut answer on this one. Quite frankly, it's jumbled all over the place from Brigham Young to Bruce R. McConkie. Again, a subjective issue. What seems a major point of praxis to you can differ from member to member.

Just because eternal marriage between a man and woman may be fundamental doctrine doesn't mean that's the only eternal marriage recognized by God. This is where I'm trying to be careful not to place limits on what I think Heaven will look like. None of us know. We have the gospel and that gives us a good idea, but there's more unknown than there is understood. Both heterosexual and homosexual marriages could be valid in the eyes of God. Do I personally believe that to be true? I don't know. Do I want it to be true? That's also unanswerable for me. I want the will of God to go forward because I believe His plan is perfect even if I don't have a full vision of that plan. Based on my current perspective from within the Church, God would never sanction a homosexual eternal marriage in the Celestial Kingdom, but maybe unions would be allowed in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms. Who's to say in 20 years that the Church won't come out with the following revision: Homosexual couples will exist in the Celestial Kingdom, but their roles are different from heterosexual couples. Slavery. The Church is the church regardless of which era of apostasy/dispensation we are in. Also, polygamy. As it's currently understood within the Church, I don't know.

It's more a matter of faith than time. Time is largely only a relevant factor for God withholding truth from those not sufficiently developed. Ether 3:20

It might affect those who are doubtful about the Church, but I don't think it would affect members who already have testimonies with solid footing. If Brigham Young did exceed the scope of his authority, the all-men-are-fallible argument steps in. If not, then it was God's will.

I'd like to say more confidently like you that it's impossible, but that's hard for me to say considering the changes in policy throughout the Church's history.

In order words, I'm entertaining a hypothetical that seems highly improbable to you but possible to me. I'm using "relevance" in context of if it's possible to occur in the future. I am trying to be open minded, but not for the sake of wearing an "inclusivity matters" sticker on my shirt. I'm trying to gauge myself with how I would respond to the Church if it tested my faith in regards to changing its stance on same-sex marriage. I like where the Church is today, and I want to say I will stand by the Church tomorrow. I'm just trying to gauge the shifting tides in the world and how that will affect Church policy in the future. I ask myself, what kind of impact would those types of changes have on my testimony? Maybe a pointless exercise, but it's helpful for me to ask myself why would I be bothered if something happened like the Church changing its position on homosexuality especially when I've observed the Church evolving the way it has. Maybe I shouldn't be bothered at all and continue making my sole focus on loving God by loving others, but at some point you want to be able to rely on a given set of beliefs and make sure you understand what it is you believe in.

Considering the extra context you added with the baptism of children of gay parents, I would agree it’s not the best example. But absent of that example, the Church is full of other instances that show societal influence in Church policies: -Polygamy: “Stop or we will exterminate you.” “Okie dokie, we comply.” -Blacks and the Priesthood: yes, I know the apologists’ defense on this, but societal influence seems obvious nonetheless -Men to be clean shaven: Seemed to largely stem from the 60’s and 70’s era of long hair and facial hair being associated with drugs, orgies, and that dang rock n roll -Word of Wisdom and “hot drinks” -Church culture has drastically changed around even just approaching topics like homosexuality You probably could come up with a list 3x longer than that, but that’s what I initially thought of.

You and I would probably disagree on the relevance of entertaining the possibility of the Church allowing same-sex couples to be married in the temple for time and all eternity. Do I want to see the Church allow temple marriages for same-sex couples? It would challenge my current understanding of the gospel and faith in the Church. Are God's hands tied or His plan too limited to not allow same-sex couples into the Celestial Kingdom? I honestly don't know. What I can answer is how far I'd be willing to follow the Church if they said that same-sex couples were allowed to be sealed in the temple. If Church leadership said that today, my best guess is I would leave the Church. Would me leaving the Church over that issue be a lack of faith on my part? Would I have access to revelation at the time the Church allowed same-sex couples to be sealed that I didn't have access to previously?

There's the distinction of eternal truths that will never change versus how the church allows core doctrine to be practiced or not practiced among its members and what it considers to be sinful. Could core doctrines be changed regarding what the church considers to be sinful? I don't know. I think your position is that would never happen. If we consider the sanctity of marriage to be exclusive between a man and woman as a core doctrine, will gay marriage never be deemed as not sinful by the Church? An example to help illustrate where I'm getting at: If slavery is now considered a sin, was it not considered a sin when the Church allowed it? Even if slavery is not an eternal truth, does the Church allowing it to be practiced on Earth not make it a sin?

You are not in tune with the Spirit enough, as is the case for most of us.

Mankind has proven ignorant with what we claim to know. It's sometimes hard to see where that dividing line is between trying to do the right thing and doing something life-threateningly stupid, although history shows we are getting better.

Medical treatments have been known to be dangerous trends.

In the sense of eternal truths, nothing has changed at all. Our levels of obedience are what changes, and God's Church sometimes has to pivot to help us better digest and learn obedience to God's eternal truths.

The fundamentals, the core gospel, ancillary issues to the gospel, church culture... I'm questioning how all of it can be influenced by society. If what we previously thought to be impenetrable from societal influence all of a sudden becomes subject to it, where does that leave us with our testimonies?

If you don't understand how society shapes the Church, and you incorrectly assume the Church is uninfluenced by society, there's your problem. An obvious correlation exists with the trends of society and what positions the Church takes. The sooner that's accepted, the less chance of having it blindside you later on. And more importantly, figuring out the "why" can help save your testimony if you're bothered by Church leadership being influenced by society. PS - @estradling75 when you gonna revert back to happy Care Bear? I remember the day you changed to grumpy Care Bear. Sad day for all of us. Happy Care Bear making a comeback any time soon?

I'm more so questioning why the Church is influenced by society the way that it is and wondering what we might want to be prepared for in the coming years regarding society's influence on the Church. As an example, if the whole world embraced the Tide Pod challenge, would you question the Church if it endorsed it? How far off is the Tide Pod challenge from hooking up electric wires to gay men's genitals and shocking them and inducing vomiting at the sight of erotic gay images?

This is something that isn't easy for everyone to understand, nor is it intuitive to understand. It takes thoughtful contemplation to separate the Church from Jesus Christ when the Church is named after Him.

I think it's important to question the evolving nature of the Church because if some of us don't, we might feel blindsided as it unfolds before us. One of the pitfalls many of the elect will be susceptible to is assuming that the Church is this immovable, non-evolving, static organism that is and always will be as we know it today. It won't affect you until it does. We don't have to make sense of the world, but we do need to make sense of how the Church is influenced by the world. You and @MrShorty helped answer my question of why the Church allows society to shape it. The Church has to be malleable to influences like society in order to carry forth the greater good. God doesn't expect perfection of us, but He has to start somewhere. Just because God's goals for us move forwards or backwards depending on our levels of obedience, doesn't mean anything other than God is trying to work with us. Whether we've advanced from slavery to equality or we regress from the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman to more of a free-for-all, God is working with us wherever our levels of obedience allows Him to.

Is it possible we revert back to the lesser law? Are we headed in that direction? Does that contradict statements about how these are the latter days, and we are preparing for the end of times?

Like I was stating above, I really should have just made one OP about societal influences within the Church, but instead it's branched out into two involving gay electroshock therapy and homosexuality as a sin. Societal influences in the Church is the main topic of interest I'm addressing. I have no idea what kind of voltages they did or didn't use. I've also read that in addition to the shock therapy, BYU would induce the patient to vomit whenever shown a picture of something homosexual. Patients reported issues of PTSD-like symptoms later on in life when faced with a sexual situation.

In my mind, clearly slavery is the more serious sin than homosexuality, which, if practicing slavery is the furthest the Lord will allow His people to go, that allows for a lot of leniency for everything in-between.

I've seen that as well. But it's easier to embrace a softer stance on how we judge others when society is already headed that direction.

I'm questioning these topics to get a better idea on where I stand personally with society's influence in the Church, and assessing how I would feel if the Church continues to evolve around society rather than society evolving around it. I really should have just made one OP about societal influences within the Church, but instead it's branched out into two involving gay electroshock therapy and homosexuality as a sin. Me 10 years ago about my opinion on the Church changing it's stance on homosexuality as a sin: ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, WASTE OF TIME TO THINK ABOUT! Me 5 years ago: ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, WASTE OF TIME TO THINK ABOUT! Me today: Okay, I could possibly see it happening in another 20 years. Things are happening within the Church today I would have never guessed. The Church went from actively trying to thwart the legality of gay marriage to now allowing children of gay parents to be baptized in the Church. You and I both are probably perfectly fine with the children of gay parents being allowed to be baptized in the Church. But what would we have thought of that even 13 years ago back in 2008? The Church had a strong position at the time to not allow such a thing. Think of how in 2008, the Church was actively trying to promote the banning of gay marriage in California of all places (Prop 8). Now look at the map of the legality of gay marriage in the US. I think we would be kidding ourselves if we think this trend isn't going to affect some of the Church's positions in the coming years.