Wouldn't the removal of the Lectures on Faith from the D&C constitute a change in doctrine?
Would it have been in response to public opinion, which is the question?
It was coincidence that the Church received a revelation reversing the practice of Polygamy, shortly after receiving notice that the Church was going to lose property and benefits due to its practice of Polygamy.
Did the doctrine of plural marriage change? It doesn't appear to have changed at all.
bcspace wrote: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.
Kind of like how LDS Church stuck to its prophet BY saying the black priesthood prohibition would last until every other male had received the priesthood.
The LDS Church, buckling to public pressure since at least June 1978.
The problem is that even though to non believers and even some believers it is glaringly obvious the doctrine has changed as a result of public opinion unless God himself were to appear and affirm that was the case we have no way of proving it was, nor does BC have any way of proving it was not.
The discussion is futile unless BC is going to allow for other evidence.
Since you seem to have rejected all the evidence presented to you to date BC what evidence would you accept that God himself is swayed by public opinion?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
bcspace wrote: Did the doctrine of plural marriage change? It doesn't appear to have changed at all.
Wow. I could see the argument that it technically hasn't changed, but to say it hasn't appeared to change is just complete denial. It would be interesting if BC Space did a little experiment and asked 100 TBMs if in their opinion the doctrine of plural marriage has appeared to change at all from the time of Joseph Smith until now. I mean come on. It is even canonized in LDS scripture.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
Wouldn't the removal of the Lectures on Faith from the D&C constitute a change in doctrine?
Would it have been in response to public opinion, which is the question?
That's a valid point. The Lectures on Faith were not removed because of public opinion, but because the Church realized it needed to retcon Joseph Smith's deciding that Elohim has a physical body. The Lectures on Faith indicate that Elohim is a spirit (and the Lectures on Faith distinguish between Elohim just being a spirit and Jesus being a personage of "tabernacle").
Ergo, the Church pronouncing that the Lectures on Faith were never formally presented to the Church for a sustaining vote to be canonized. Except that they were unanimously accepted by the Church as canon on August 17, 1835. And the Church did not de-canonize the rest of the Doctrine and Covenants, which was accepted in the same sustaining vote (i.e., the sustaining vote was for the D&C and the Lectures on Faith all together, not piecemeal). But let's not get all distracted by objective facts that contradict the Church's hand-waving.
I agree with BCSpace. The LDS Heavenly Father drives the Mormon ship. He always has. If you are wondering why in the hell LDS Priesthood leaders ever do the weird things they do, just ask the LDS Heavenly Father. If you take issue with Mormon doctrine, you take issue with that big, powerful, celestial Man.
quark wrote:I agree with BCSpace. The LDS Heavenly Father drives the Mormon ship. He always has. If you are wondering why in the hell LDS Priesthood leaders ever do the weird things they do, just ask the LDS Heavenly Father. If you take issue with Mormon doctrine, you take issue with that big, powerful, celestial Man.
Only if you believe the LDS doctrine. Otherwise, it's just fluff. If you don't believe, the big, powerful, celestial Man is just mythology.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Buffalo wrote:Exaltation was once impossible without having a harem. Not anymore.
It depends on how you define exaltation. Do you define it as living within the jurisdiction of Heavenly Father? Do you define it as the place in which Joseph Smith and Brigham Young live? If you do, then exaltation is still impossible.
But if you define exaltation as something/some place wholly unrelated to Joseph and Brigham, then you correct that having a harem is no longer necessary.