DiscussMormonism.com

In an exchange in the comments section of an article titled "On Sexual Orientation, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Youth Suicide in Utah" a poster was talking about how the Church has changed doctrine over the years. They cited the Priesthood Ban as an example. Here is Peterson's response.

Patrick: "In all seriousness, you would have grown up under the doctrine of the priesthood ban."

A relatively peripheral matter.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_thread

Overturning 100 years of racism, black people receiving the Priesthood and gaining access to the temple is "relatively peripheral"? Really?

I think he means that the specific time period in which he grew up is the peripheral matter, not the granting of black people the priesthood.

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 21, 2022 12:37 pm

I think he means that the specific time period in which he grew up is the peripheral matter, not the granting of black people the priesthood.

I don't think so. They were conversing on a point about the Church being doctrinally unchanging. "Patrick" pointed out some doctrines have changed...

Patrick: "If there's one thing I know for certain is that church doctrine changes."

You've got that right! When I was young, we venerated Jesus. Now, we worship Buddha. We used to value chastity, but now we spit on it. Once, we believed in the resurrection. Now we look forward to multiple reincarnations. Our canon didn't always include the Bhagavad Gita, and our services weren't always centered on torch-lit Latin chanting. Prayer has been replaced by calypso dancing.

Peterson is talking about the doctrinal change, whereby Black people were able to attend the temple and hold the Priesthood, as "peripheral" to the overall Church doctrinal positions.

Oh boy...Peterson...What a mess you make.

Patrick suggests the doctrine changes. Peterson responds implying it doesn't change. Patrick points out changes and Peterson suggests all the examples are peripheral as if that means anything to the original point.

"well yes, God got it wrong for a while, but it doesn't really matter that he got it wrong because those are all peripheral issues, as I see it. So its basically as if nothing changed."

Jeez Peterson stop for a sec and put yourself in the shoes of a faithful black man pre-1978 who stays with the Church through the change. Let him decide if it was peripheral to him. To most Mormons the priesthood, the temple, the exaltation is the point. Jesus. The guy can't let things be.

It is exhausting to watch apologetics most of the time.

In the comments previously linked, John Parry:

I would argue that none of those were doctrine...The priesthood restriction was a variation of the exercise of priesthood generally and has plenty of historical precedent. We are not taught that the ban was "wrong", but some of the excuses for it were extremely misguided.

From the 1 Presidency circa 1947:

From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

members tend to think they can change what past leaders called doctrine to something that was never doctrine. Also, yeah right, as if "doctrine" is anything but teaching (a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church).

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:02 pm

It is exhausting to watch apologetics most of the time.

In the comments previously linked, John Parry:

I would argue that none of those were doctrine...The priesthood restriction was a variation of the exercise of priesthood generally and has plenty of historical precedent. We are not taught that the ban was "wrong", but some of the excuses for it were extremely misguided.

From the 1 Presidency circa 1947:

From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

members tend to think they can change what past leaders called doctrine to something that was never doctrine. Also, yeah right, as if "doctrine" is anything but teaching (a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church).

And reiterated by the First Presidency, in 1949:

It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization...

“DCP” wrote: Patrick: "If there's one thing I know for certain is that church doctrine changes."
You've got that right! When I was young, we venerated Jesus. Now, we worship Buddha. We used to value chastity, but now we spit on it. Once, we believed in the resurrection. Now we look forward to multiple reincarnations. Our canon didn't always include the Bhagavad Gita, and our services weren't always centered on torch-lit Latin chanting. Prayer has been replaced by calypso dancing.

Dan’s argument against the fact that the church has changed every major doctrine over the last 200 years is “well we aren’t worshiping Buddha so it’s not a problem.”

It’s amazing BYU students had to take classes with this clown.

I’ll never understand the aversion to the idea of doctrine changing that some have, when they are literally in a Church that claims continuing revelation.

Doctor Steuss wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:49 pm

I’ll never understand the aversion to the idea of doctrine changing that some have, when they are literally in a Church that claims continuing revelation.

It is a perplexing paradox. That which changes isn't really doctrine they conclude, because doctrine must be from God. Those other teachings that change and aren't doctrine were just mistakes of men. "yeah...I know BY and others said it was doctrine but we know it wasn't really doctrine that changed because it changed. Therefore it wasn't doctrine anyway. It was something else that God needed to change". I mean...whatever. They're cute.

Did he mean it was of minority importance?