If LDS can accept changing revelation…

[Wingnut]

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.

I've never thought of polygamy as the doctrine itself. I've always thought it was one way of practicing the doctrine of eternal marriage.

[Blackmarch]

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.

no idea at how well i'd accept them.. however i'd find that a lot easier to accept than many of the things that ancient israelites were commanded to do.

[Dravin]

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

Assuming I'm not off base you can probably use my above post as a rephrase.

[Moksha]

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.

While it was referred to as doctrine at the time, the Priesthood ban was actually a colossal mistake that unfortunately got codified for a 130 year blooper. Polygamy was a practice that got leaders killed, imprisoned and nearly lead to the dissolution of the Church. Its memory still stigmatizes Mormons today and causes extremists to still practice it to the harm of the child brides and the cast out boys who are viewed as potential mating competitors.

[Guest]

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.

Okay, what's a Scotsman filter?

[Elgama]

Okay, what's a Scotsman filter?

as far as I am aware its all pants or rather no pants lol as no true Scotsman wears underwear:)

[Moksha]

Okay, what's a Scotsman filter?

Scotsman - Scotsman Water Filter Systems

[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.

Thank you for your response. I thought to include the words of Nephi when he was not sure.

1Nephi 2:16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the amysteries of God, wherefore, I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did bvisit me, and did csoften my heart that I did dbelieve all the words which had been spoken by my efather; wherefore, I did not frebel against him like unto my brothers.

17 And I spake unto Sam, making known unto him the things which the Lord had manifested unto me by his Holy Spirit. And it came to pass that he believed in my words.

18 But, behold, Laman and Lemuel would not hearken unto my words; and being agrieved because of the hardness of their hearts I cried unto the Lord for them.

19 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy afaith, for thou hast sought me diligently, with lowliness of heart.

20 And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall aprosper, and shall be led to a bland of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

and shall be led to a bland of promise

Did not realize McDonalds was part of a prophecy.

[baver3]

There may be more changes as we near closer to the millenium but it would be my guess that what would be required of us would be more of a tightening than a loosening of our standards as to set us apart even more from the rest of the world, or perhaps to 'qualify' those of us who are willing to sacrifice even more to make us worthy, ready and willing to do as the Lord instructs us.

[Dravin]

Okay, what's a Scotsman filter?

No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy. The short of it is if you make a claim that X doesn't do this, or Y always does this and when provided with an example to the contrary you simply define it as not a true X or Y.

The example given on wiki (No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is:

Person A: All Scotsmen love haggis.

Person B: Well my uncle, who is a Scotsman, hates haggis.

Person A: All true Scotsmen love haggis.

How this applies to Snow's comment:

Person A: Doctrine never changes.

Person B: What about blacks being allowed the priesthood or the discontinuation of polygamy even in locations where it is legal?

Person A: No doctrine changes, those are policies (aka not a true doctrine).

A little more subtle and varied in it's execution and possibly not a true true no true Scotsman () and thus why I called it a filter of sorts. All they have to do to defend their original premise is maintain that any counter example you provide is not (a true) doctrine but somehow something else such as a policy (not a true doctrine).

Note: Explaining a counter example is invalid in the case of that counter example not being valid is entirely legitimate. So rebutting the assertion that doctrine changes because now General Conference is held in the Conference Center instead of the tabernacle by pointing out that isn't an issue of doctrine would be valid and not an example of no true Scotsman.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Dravin

[Dravin]

Okay, what's a Scotsman filter?

No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy. The short of it is you make a claim that X doesn't do this, or Y always does this and when provided with an example to the contrary you simply define it as not a true X or Y and thus not a threat to your claim (No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Edit: On further reflection defining a doctrine as immutable and claiming that doctrine doesn't change is a tautology, which may be the more appropriate term concerning Snow's comment. No true Scotsman just came to my mind first.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Dravin

[Guest]

No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy. The short of it is you make a claim that X doesn't do this, or Y always does this and when provided with an example to the contrary you simply define it as not a true X or Y and thus not a threat to your claim (No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Edit: On further reflection defining a doctrine as immutable and claiming that doctrine doesn't change is a tautology, which may be the more appropriate term concerning Snow's comment. No true Scotsman just came to my mind first.

So, if I understand this correctly, my statement that doctrine never changes is not true in the light of polygamy and blacks in the priesthood?

[Hemidakota]

There may be more changes as we near closer to the millenium but it would be my guess that what would be required of us would be more of a tightening than a loosening of our standards as to set us apart even more from the rest of the world, or perhaps to 'qualify' those of us who are willing to sacrifice even more to make us worthy, ready and willing to do as the Lord instructs us.

WITHDRAWAL OF THE HOLY GHOST AND SPIRIT FROM THE WORLD - coming soon;

What will be a true hardship for members in the church, when the Holy Ghost withdraws itself from the world and those who are not ‘humble and meek’ in the church. Yes! It only grieves the Spirit. Only those who are called by GOD, receive that sealing will be spared and given the Spirit. More or less, it is a separation of the ‘tares among the wheat’ in the church. But for me, to update this parable by the Savior, destroyers assigned by GOD, will remove the ‘nutgrass’ among the bladed fescue grass. This will be done before they will loose the ‘four wind’s upon the earth.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Hemidakota

[Elgama]

So, if I understand this correctly, my statement that doctrine never changes is not true in the light of polygamy and blacks in the priesthood?

one could argue Latter Day Saints still practice polygamy and at least one son of Ham received the priesthood when his own faith broke the curse for him and his descendants.

[Dravin]

So, if I understand this correctly, my statement that doctrine never changes is not true in the light of polygamy and blacks in the priesthood?

Ultimately Snow will have to pop back into the thread and confirm or deny, but yes, my best read is that Snow has an objection to that position. Either due to the argumentation used to support the conclusion, or because he disagrees with the conclusion.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Dravin

[Guest]

Ultimately Snow will have to pop back into the thread and confirm or deny, but yes, my best read is that Snow has an objection to that position. Either due to the argumentation used to support the conclusion, or because he disagrees with the conclusion.

Okay, then Snow will have to explain what is Doctrine and what is Practice in reference to polygamy and blacks holding the priesthood. Because, the assertion is that although the practice can change, the doctrine doesn't. There is continuing revelation that can add to or clarify doctrine but it doesn't change doctrine.

[Traveler]

Okay, then Snow will have to explain what is Doctrine and what is Practice in reference to polygamy and blacks holding the priesthood. Because, the assertion is that although the practice can change, the doctrine doesn't. There is continuing revelation that can add to or clarify doctrine but it doesn't change doctrine.

In reality doctrine does not change: The basis of doctrine is that we follow the L-rd's instructions. For example for polygamy the doctrine is that a man can take unto himself one wife and a wife can give herself to one husband. In addition if G-d commands a man must take an additional wife but not necessarily of his choosing but according to the direction of the L-rd.

Do we understand covenants yet?

The Traveler

[Snow]

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.

For my point, I avoid equating my opinions with God's opinions. You seem to have so such inhibition.

[Snow]

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

Here's a better treatment:

Doctrine means something that is taught. What the Church teaches does change from time to time. We in the Church often use another definition for doctrine as some aspect of theology that is absolutely and irrevocably true. It is difficult or even non-productive to think of doctrine in terms of that which is absolutely and irrevocably true. Part of that is due to the imperfect nature of the communication process with God. We, even prophets, are not unadulterated vessels waiting to be filled up with pure truth. We, all of us, have all sorts of filters and bias and imperfections. What we or what a prophet receives and remembers and records may start out as perfect at God's end but by the time it is rolled out to the citizenry there is much opportunity for imperfection to creep in.

We see such crept-in imperfection all the time in the beliefs and opinions of Church leadership. We even see changes in scripture as corrections are made and improved understanding makes something more clear. Joseph Smith continued to revise his revelations years after first receiving them. He obviously understood the imperfect filter inherent in such matters and continued to seek clarity.

Another reason that think of absolute doctrine is unhelpful is that a scripture and hence all doctrine is subject to interpretation. Interpretations can be wrong and they do change. An example is that the Church's normative stance on the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage was plural marriage. That is what we/they believe prior to Talmage's influence on the matter. Now we understand the matter differently. So you can say that the doctrine never changed, but the interpretation changed. Okay - you could say that about anything.

Most people believe that only men will ever have priesthood and that is doctrinal. Well one day women might have it. President Hinckley said it was possible. So what would change, the interpretation or the doctrine, or in this example, new revelation.

[Guest]

Here's a better treatment:

Doctrine means something that is taught. What the Church teaches does change from time to time. We in the Church often use another definition for doctrine as some aspect of theology that is absolutely and irrevocably true. It is difficult or even non-productive to think of doctrine in terms of that which is absolutely and irrevocably true. Part of that is due to the imperfect nature of the communication process with God. We, even prophets, are not unadulterated vessels waiting to be filled up with pure truth. We, all of us, have all sorts of filters and bias and imperfections. What we or what a prophet receives and remembers and records may start out as perfect at God's end but by the time it is rolled out to the citizenry there is much opportunity for imperfection to creep in.

We see such crept-in imperfection all the time in the beliefs and opinions of Church leadership. We even see changes in scripture as corrections are made and improved understanding makes something more clear. Joseph Smith continued to revise his revelations years after first receiving them. He obviously understood the imperfect filter inherent in such matters and continued to seek clarity.

Another reason that think of absolute doctrine is unhelpful is that a scripture and hence all doctrine is subject to interpretation. Interpretations can be wrong and they do change. An example is that the Church's normative stance on the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage was plural marriage. That is what we/they believe prior to Talmage's influence on the matter. Now we understand the matter differently. So you can say that the doctrine never changed, but the interpretation changed. Okay - you could say that about anything.

Most people believe that only men will ever have priesthood and that is doctrinal. Well one day women might have it. President Hinckley said it was possible. So what would change, the interpretation or the doctrine, or in this example, new revelation.

Okay, I see what you're saying Snow. The difference in our understanding then is my definition of doctrine. And I can see how we differ on it - because, like morality, I take doctrine as absolute even from my early background as a Roman Catholic.

Jesus is the Word. So sure, we are given the word precept upon precept from Mosaic Law down to the Restoration and up until today. You might say, oh, but Mosaic Law is completely different doctrine from what we practice today. I say, nope, not so. It is the same doctrine applied in the timeframe of human frailty. Different times required different application... of the same doctrine. Because the doctrine is Jesus.

Sure, tomorrow there might be women in the priesthood. But, what is the eternal doctrine of the priesthood? From my understanding - the priesthood is the authority given by God to man to administer the church ordinances. Man - meaning human, not humans with male reproductive organs. It has always been selective - as evidenced by the Levites up until today - and predicated by worthiness.

When I received my endowments at the temple, I was ministered to by women holding Priesthood authority. So, it wouldn't come to me as a surprise if women are given priesthood authority outside the temple tomorrow. Because, the doctrine of the Priesthood does not say that the requirements for who can hold it is set in stone.

Just because human frailty makes it so that we interpret doctrine differently doesn't mean to me that the doctrine changed. It means to me that we understood the same doctrine differently - sometimes in error, sometimes we are just not prepared to understand it in full, so we get a small glimpse of it now and get a deluge of it later.

Edited June 4, 2010 by anatess

[Snow]

Hi anatess,

I don't dispute that there is absolute, immutable truth (definable as doctrine). My point is that such absolute truth is not easily accessible to mankind, even inspired men/women due to the human filter through which we process...

I've thought before that it would be interesting to take ten or twenty doctrinal type items and through research determine how such doctrine was understood 175 years ago in the Church and compare them to how they are understood today. I imagine that there would be quite a difference in the two.

That's not a criticism - I would hope that we are growing in light and understanding as we go along.

[Wingnut]

That's not a criticism - I would hope that we are growing in light and understanding as we go along.

Line upon line? Milk before meat?

[Snow]

Line upon line? Milk before meat?

I hardly ever drink milk anymore. I require meat to maintain my passion for the gospel.

I think I testimony would have been stronger earlier on if I hadn't been fed so much milk for so long.

[carlimac]

Well back to the OP...

I wouldn't handle a change in the word of wisdom very well unless it were to restrict a few more things that aren't but should be restricted. (Excessive amounts of fat)

I'm always hopeful that the Sunday block will be shortened to 2 hours.

I thought "no R rated movies" was merely a suggestion and not really a commandment. I know lots of members who watch selective R rated shows. It might be nice if there were an equally strong suggestion from our leaders to check out movie rating sights online (such as screenit. com or kids-in-mind.com ) before watching any movie- even PG-13 rated movies. ESPECIALLY before watching PG-13with teenage daughters.