Public opinion does not drive or sway LDS doctrine

[_bcspace]

I posted this in the CK forum as part of another post and thought I'd throw it down here to see if it could stand the heat:

But the reality is that the doctrine of the Church is not based on public opinion but on revelation from God and God has already stated his opinion on homosexuality through His prophets. Those who would argue public opinion should remind themselves that the Church still practices plural marriage; it's still a doctrine. And the Church has not repudiated not allowing descendents of Cain to have the priesthood for a time. In the face of public opinion, the Church merely presents another face, it doesn't change it's doctrine.

I think this principle will be tested over the next decade regarding the issue of homosexuality and I predict it will come out unscathed.

[_Fence Sitter]

I posted this in the CK forum as part of another post and thought I'd throw it down here to see if it could stand the heat:

But the reality is that the doctrine of the Church is not based on public opinion but on revelation from God and God has already stated his opinion on homosexuality through His prophets. Those who would argue public opinion should remind themselves that the Church still practices plural marriage; it's still a doctrine. And the Church has not repudiated not allowing descendents of Cain to have the priesthood for a time. In the face of public opinion, the Church merely presents another face, it doesn't change it's doctrine.

I think this principle will be tested over the next decade regarding the issue of homosexuality and I predict it will come out unscathed.

Can you be more vague? BC it is difficult at time sto converse with you regarding doctrine because your definitions of what constitutes doctrine are self fulfilling.

30 years from now do you think the Church will have changed it's stance on homosexual marriage outside the church?

Do you believe the church has remained unscathed to date regarding the homosexual issue?

[_Buffalo]

I posted this in the CK forum as part of another post and thought I'd throw it down here to see if it could stand the heat:

But the reality is that the doctrine of the Church is not based on public opinion but on revelation from God and God has already stated his opinion on homosexuality through His prophets. Those who would argue public opinion should remind themselves that the Church still practices plural marriage; it's still a doctrine. And the Church has not repudiated not allowing descendents of Cain to have the priesthood for a time. In the face of public opinion, the Church merely presents another face, it doesn't change it's doctrine.

I think this principle will be tested over the next decade regarding the issue of homosexuality and I predict it will come out unscathed.

The church leadership HAS repudiated the "curse of Cain doctrine." Now they say over and over, "we don't know the reason." The church is more sensitive to public pressure now than it has ever been.

[Guest]

Can you be more vague?

No. I like specificity.

BC it is difficult at time sto converse with you regarding doctrine because your definitions of what constitutes doctrine are self fulfilling.

Well no, my definition of doctrine is the same is the LDS Church's definition. But feel free to query more about it and I can show you doctrine based on the Church's definition.

30 years from now do you think the Church will have changed it's stance on homosexual marriage outside the church?

If there are any changes, I believe the net effect on doctrine will be zero as per the other issues I mentioned.

Do you believe the church has remained unscathed to date regarding the homosexual issue?

It's being brutally assaulted along with the rest of society regarding the homosexual issue. So no, not unscathed. The Church certainly has put a different face on it, but no doctrine has been changed. Homosexuality remains a sin and of course the Church does not perform homosexual marriages.

But what I'm exploring is if the principle I highlighted in blue is actually a truism about the LDS Church.

The church leadership HAS repudiated the "curse of Cain doctrine." Now they say over and over, "we don't know the reason."

Not knowing the reason does not repudiate the doctrine. For example, Abraham 1 has not been removed from canon.

The church is more sensitive to public pressure now than it has ever been.

Sure. But does the Church change the doctrine or present a different face? I see no evidence of the former.

[_WheatThins]

The church is going to do what it can in order to continue on existing, that is the only reason that doctrine will change. If you want to believe that it is god who is the one giving advice or revelations about things, fine. If you want to think that it is a consorted effort by the church leaders to change doctrine to make it more palatable to the average person, convert or what ever, that's fine too. It doesn't however change the fact that when church doctrine changes, it usually happens to benefit the church in some way.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Public opinion does not drive or sway LDS doctrine

You're actually talking about FLDS doctrine, right?

[_DarkHelmet]

The only real LDS doctrine is LDS leaders are never wrong. All other "doctrine" flows from that one master doctrine.

[_stemelbow]

But the reality is that the doctrine of the Church is not based on public opinion but on revelation from God and God has already stated his opinion on homosexuality through His prophets. Those who would argue public opinion should remind themselves that the Church still practices plural marriage; it's still a doctrine.

Then why can't you go marry two or three women in the temple? The doctrine now is not that a living man can be sealed to many living women.

And the Church has not repudiated not allowing descendents of Cain to have the priesthood for a time.

But its not a doctrine. It used to be. Its not anymore. Sure, there has been no official repudiation of the former position, but the position doesn't hold any longer.

In the face of public opinion, the Church merely presents another face, it doesn't change it's doctrine.

I disagree and I don't think its necessarily a bad thing--as Joseph Smith taught we accept truth no matter the source.

[_Buffalo]

The church leadership HAS repudiated the "curse of Cain doctrine." Now they say over and over, "we don't know the reason."

Not knowing the reason does not repudiate the doctrine. For example, Abraham 1 has not been removed from canon.

Exactly - so they're lying - they do know the reason, which doctrinally, is because blacks are supposed to be descended from Cain, who was cursed for murdering Abel.

[_Fence Sitter]

BC,

Does/has revelation ever changed doctrine?