If LDS can accept changing revelation…

[Maureen]

Could they also accept changing practices? I have been lately wondering, if President Monson made certain changes to church practices; how would the members react? For some examples:

· If Sacrament Meeting was changed to provide two settings – an adult SM and a children’s SM

· If the WofW was changed to allow coffee and tea, frown upon soft drinks, emphasize moderation, but generally let the members choose for themselves what they will eat and drink.

· Allowing members to have a civil wedding ceremony and sealing within days of each other, similar to how the UK functions.

Over the years there have been changes in practice – Priesthood in 1978, the Temple in 1990 & 2005. How well did you accept these changes? How well do you think you would be able to accept the changes stated above, or any other type of changes that would go against the status quo?

M.

[Guest]

Could they also accept changing practices? I have been lately wondering, if President Monson made certain changes to church practices; how would the members react? For some examples:

· If Sacrament Meeting was changed to provide two settings – an adult SM and a children’s SM

· If the WofW was changed to allow coffee and tea, frown upon soft drinks, emphasize moderation, but generally let the members choose for themselves what they will eat and drink.

· Allowing members to have a civil wedding ceremony and sealing within days of each other, similar to how the UK functions.

Over the years there have been changes in practice – Priesthood in 1978, the Temple in 1990 & 2005. How well did you accept these changes? How well do you think you would be able to accept the changes stated above, or any other type of changes that would go against the status quo?

M.

The practice may change but the doctrine never does. Change in practice may be necessary depending on the state of the saints at a particular point in time.

For example, if change in practice is not acceptable, then we would all still be under Mosaic Law, etc. It is not that the doctrine changed between Moses and Jesus or between Jesus and Thomas S. Monson. It is the application of doctrine that varied.

Whatever the prophet puts forth is relevant to the times. A faithful member follows the current prophet. Of course, if one doesn't have faith in prophets, then it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to follow something that may not make sense at the time.

In all cases, one's personal revelation - in a plea to the Holy Ghost to understand the change in practice - is beneficial. It doesn't matter what change it might possibly be. We have discussed it here in this forum before that if the prophet asks everyone to give all their personal belongings to the church, would you do it? From all the responses, it was evident, that majority would do so after sincere and heartfelt prayer.

[Dravin]

I imagine Coffee Shops in Utah would shout for joy at the second one.

[NeuroTypical]

How well do you think you would be able to accept the changes stated above, or any other type of changes that would go against the status quo?

Fine by me. I've said in the past that the only good reason to be a Mormon, is you figure God wants you to be one. If they go and change what being a Mormon means, then if God wants you to be one, you be one.

We're told about a few whoppers of practice changes coming in the events leading up to the millenium. Maybe we'll see some of that in our lifetimes.

LM

[Hemidakota]

The practice may change but the doctrine never does. Change in practice may be necessary depending on the state of the saints at a particular point in time.

Doctrine is doctrine. It can be added too with more doctrine but you are right, it never changes.

[MarginOfError]

Could they also accept changing practices? I have been lately wondering, if President Monson made certain changes to church practices; how would the members react? For some examples:

· If Sacrament Meeting was changed to provide two settings – an adult SM and a children’s SM

· If the WofW was changed to allow coffee and tea, frown upon soft drinks, emphasize moderation, but generally let the members choose for themselves what they will eat and drink.

· Allowing members to have a civil wedding ceremony and sealing within days of each other, similar to how the UK functions.

Over the years there have been changes in practice – Priesthood in 1978, the Temple in 1990 & 2005. How well did you accept these changes? How well do you think you would be able to accept the changes stated above, or any other type of changes that would go against the status quo?

M.

Or how about dropping the restriction against R rated movies? (has practice changed since that one was dropped?)

[Hemidakota]

Could they also accept changing practices? I have been lately wondering, if President Monson made certain changes to church practices; how would the members react? For some examples:

• If Sacrament Meeting was changed to provide two settings – an adult SM and a children’s SM

• If the WofW was changed to allow coffee and tea, frown upon soft drinks, emphasize moderation, but generally let the members choose for themselves what they will eat and drink.

• Allowing members to have a civil wedding ceremony and sealing within days of each other, similar to how the UK functions.

Over the years there have been changes in practice – Priesthood in 1978, the Temple in 1990 & 2005. How well did you accept these changes? How well do you think you would be able to accept the changes stated above, or any other type of changes that would go against the status quo?

M.

As members of the gospel of Christ, we are not alone without the revelatory means called the Holy Ghost. We can be further instructed by this third member of the Godhead beside what is already given in the church.

I still remember the practice of the three block day for Sunday. Man that was the best change ever.

[Traveler]

Could they also accept changing practices? I have been lately wondering, if President Monson made certain changes to church practices; how would the members react? For some examples:

· If Sacrament Meeting was changed to provide two settings – an adult SM and a children’s SM

· If the WofW was changed to allow coffee and tea, frown upon soft drinks, emphasize moderation, but generally let the members choose for themselves what they will eat and drink.

· Allowing members to have a civil wedding ceremony and sealing within days of each other, similar to how the UK functions.

Over the years there have been changes in practice – Priesthood in 1978, the Temple in 1990 & 2005. How well did you accept these changes? How well do you think you would be able to accept the changes stated above, or any other type of changes that would go against the status quo?

M.

As with any change I believe that I am as entitled as the president to guidance for anything affecting my life. So I figure if the L-rd would let our Prophet understand a change he would direct me as well.

I will admit that some personal confirmation comes for some things easier than others but unless and until I receive confirmation (as did Nephi concerning his father Lehi) - I'm not buying it.

The Traveler

[beefche]

As with any change I believe that I am as entitled as the president to guidance for anything affecting my life. So I figure if the L-rd would let our Prophet understand a change he would direct me as well.

I will admit that some personal confirmation comes for some things easier than others but unless and until I receive confirmation (as did Nephi concerning his father Lehi) - I'm not buying it.

The Traveler

That's interesting, Traveler. Most of the changes I've been involved in (I've been a member for 20 years), are more procedural changes. Most don't bother me. The only one that made me pout for 5 minutes was when Pres Hinckley said that women should only have one piercing. I wanted more than one. After my 5 min temper tantrum (acted out completely in my head), I realized that whether I agreed or not, it's not something to get my panties in a twist.

What I learned from that experience was that if I'm willing to accept the prophet as the Lord's servant and mouthpiece, and I'm able to accept these seemingly minor things, then I will be more prepared to accept something that goes against my political or intellectual beliefs.

Not that I disagree with you regarding receiving our own confirmation, Traveler. To the contrary, I wish more people WOULD do that. But for me, I don't need confirmation necessarily if we change from a 3 hour block to a 2 hour block of meetings on Sunday.

[Maureen]

Or how about dropping the restriction against R rated movies? (has practice changed since that one was dropped?)

Good example, considering movie ratings are different depending on where one lives.

M.

[ADoyle90815]

I think that allowing civil ceremonies without the 1 year waiting period would make families of converts less hostile to the LDS church. After all, it's already done in other countries like the UK where everyone regardless of religion, must have a civil ceremony for the marriage to be legal.

[Moksha]

Maureen, I have wondered about occasional change being helpful in preventing neuroticism. What is your opinion about this idea?

BTW, folks in my ward adjusted to plastic Sacrament trays quite easily.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think that allowing civil ceremonies without the 1 year waiting period would make families of converts less hostile to the LDS church. After all, it's already done in other countries like the UK where everyone regardless of religion, must have a civil ceremony for the marriage to be legal.

I wonder whether that has created an appreciable, statistical impact on missionary work in the UK?

[Guest mormonmusic]

MOst of these changes are easy to swallow, and representing a lightening of restrictions. I don't think most people would object to them.

There will be some how would cry foul on major changes like, say, giving women the priesthood, or increasing tithing to 15%, for example.

I'd have to pray about the latter one to go along with that one willingly.

If the Prophet came out with anything that reversed established, time honored revelation, people would come out with explanations to explain it away. They always do on matters that appear inconsistent or can be interpreted as credibility problems.

Personally, I'd just pray about it and get a confirmation.

Years ago, my sister told me she would never join the LDS Church because "she's self-directed". Implying that I needed an external body deciding my philosophy for me and directing my beliefs and behavior, while she was such a great independent thinker she could do all that herself.

My silent rejoinder was "I'm self-directed too because I have a confirmation is the right thing, and I CHOOSE to do it". Same would apply to sweeping changes to doctrine. It might take me a while to get willing (like if I was told I had to sign over all my 401k's to my local Ward's budget), but I'd only do it if I had a confirmation -- because -- I'M SELF DIRECTED!

[Wingnut]

There will be some how would cry foul on major changes like, say, ... increasing tithing to 15%, for example.

Well, they wouldn't be able to call it tithing anymore. By it's very nature and etymology, they'd have to call it something else, interestingly.

[Dravin]

Well, they wouldn't be able to call it tithing anymore. By it's very nature and etymology, they'd have to call it something else, interestingly.

Hey if we can make irregardless mean regardless we can make tithing mean 15% dang it!

[Wingnut]

Irregardless of the semantics, 15% couldn't accurately be referred to as a tithe.

[Hemidakota]

Hey if we can make irregardless mean regardless we can make tithing mean 15% dang it!

How about your whole income? Tithing is nothing more than the lesser commandment to the Law of Consecration.

[Maureen]

Maureen, I have wondered about occasional change being helpful in preventing neuroticism. What is your opinion about this idea?...

I've never really thought about it myself, specifically in regards to neuroticism. But I do think when change is introduced to humans it's probably helpful mentally. Keeps us thinking, learning and adapting.

M.

[Snow]

The practice may change but the doctrine never does.

That's right... and if it ever does, think plural marriage, blacks and the priesthood, etc - well then, it wasn't doctrine, now was it.

[Hemidakota]

Barring a certain class of people has nothing to do with eternal doctrine of the priesthood or stopping a doctrinal practice to preserve the church, when the lackeys of the devil ran government have a greater earthly power to stop the church in its infancy from growing.

Priesthood barring was remove by the Savior and plural marriage will return. Now, if you feel this is wrong, then complained to the Lord about it.

[Dravin]

Priesthood barring was remove by the Savior and plural marriage will return. Now, if you feel this is wrong, then complained to the Lord about it.

Snow isn't complaining about the changes, he's commenting on what he feels is a no true Scotsman filter that people seem to apply concerning (im)mutable doctrine versus policy. At least if I'm reading him right.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Dravin

[Maureen]

...There will be some how would cry foul on major changes like, say, giving women the priesthood, or increasing tithing to 15%, for example...

I definitely can see giving women the priesthood would be a difficult adjustment for many. We can see this with the creation of the Restoration Branches when members split from the Community of Christ due to this very thing.

Some churches don't practice tithing but giving. I believe the main idea is that in a congregation, those who have more give more, while those who have little give what they can. There is no set percentage. I wonder if this type of church support would work for LDS; temple interview questions would need to be revised.

M.

[Hemidakota]

I suspect it will in the future: "DO YOU GIVE ALL OF YOUR INCREASE [iNCOME] TO THE BISHOP OR BRANCH PRESIDENT?"

[Guest]

That's right... and if it ever does, think plural marriage, blacks and the priesthood, etc - well then, it wasn't doctrine, now was it.

Sorry, Snow! I'm kinda slow today. I'm not sure if I understood your comment. Can I plead for a rephrase?