bcspace wrote:The doctrine on plural marriage never changed.
Yep. I tell my wife that all the time. She doesn't believe me, but I tell her prominent Mormon internet scholars testify of it. It pisses her off when I prove this to her.
The doctrine on the priesthood ban never changed.
Not sure about this. I don't hear prophets and apostles talking about negroes being cursed with black skin for their behavior in the pre-existence anymore. I haven't recently heard of a black man being denied the priesthood because he's a negro. I think this one really did change.
LDS doctrine, while changeable as part of our systematic theology, doesn't actually change much in reality.
The doctrine never changes, it is just the things that are taught that change.
"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
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Typical Packer -- there is no way to control this "gorilla" (a word Dallin Oaks used many years ago to describe Packer).
I missed this! Do you have a link?
As for the OP, I really doubt we'll see much change until there has been a total turnover of the current generation of GAs. Look how long it took for the priesthood ban to end. Unless there is a significant increase in negative consequences for the church's stance on gay marriage (like there was for polygamy in the 1880s) I don't believe many of us will live to see the church formally end its institutionalized persecution of LGBTs. Then again, the rapid increase in apostasies (and the subsequent loss of tithing $$$) might already be enough for the old farts in SLC to consider holding their noses and swallowing the bitter (slightly salty?) pill sooner rather than later.
"I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Well, Packer can say what he wants. His days are numbered, and when he's gone, I don't see who in the Q12 could take his place as the fire-breathing HiC (Homophobe-in-Chief) of the church.
My bet is that most of the agitation of the church against the gays has been driven by a small number of very old men, probably Packer most of all, and when he is (they are) gone in a few years the church will just stop talking about this much, and 30 years from now it will hardly be thought of anymore.
Last edited by Anonymous on Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
bcspace wrote:The whole point of PR is to dodge bullets. Do not confuse a more pleasant face with a change in doctrine. Ain't gonna happen, especially on this issue. The doctrine on plural marriage never changed. The doctrine on the priesthood ban never changed. LDS doctrine, while changeable as part of our systematic theology, doesn't actually change much in reality.
I had epiphany....
I truly wish there were more people like you in the LDS church. The fence sitters and lukewarm members are what keep my wife involved....If only there were more members like you that embrace the doctrines of the LDS church, I could help her see what a damaged, ridiculous religion Mormonism is....BCspace, I applaud your efforts and beliefs.
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
bcspace wrote:The whole point of PR is to dodge bullets. Do not confuse a more pleasant face with a change in doctrine. Ain't gonna happen, especially on this issue. The doctrine on plural marriage never changed. The doctrine on the priesthood ban never changed. LDS doctrine, while changeable as part of our systematic theology, doesn't actually change much in reality.
When we put on a happy face it can change our whole demeanor. We can start out just pretending but soon our faking it will actually make it happen, or at least that is what I've read.
bcspace wrote:The whole point of PR is to dodge bullets. Do not confuse a more pleasant face with a change in doctrine. Ain't gonna happen, especially on this issue. The doctrine on plural marriage never changed. The doctrine on the priesthood ban never changed. LDS doctrine, while changeable as part of our systematic theology, doesn't actually change much in reality.
When we put on a happy face it can change our whole demeanor. We can start out just pretending but soon our faking it will actually make it happen, or at least that is what I've read.
I thought I was reading the Ensign for a sec...
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
I truly wish there were more people like you in the LDS church. The fence sitters and lukewarm members are what keep my wife involved....If only there were more members like you that embrace the doctrines of the LDS church, I could help her see what a damaged, ridiculous religion Mormonism is....BCspace, I applaud your efforts and beliefs.
It's absolutely ridiculous to maintain membership in a Church you don't believe in.
The doctrine on plural marriage never changed.
Yep. I tell my wife that all the time. She doesn't believe me, but I tell her prominent Mormon internet scholars testify of it. It pisses her off when I prove this to her.
Does she not believe Jacob 2:30?
The doctrine on the priesthood ban never changed.
Not sure about this. I don't hear prophets and apostles talking about negroes being cursed with black skin for their behavior in the pre-existence anymore.
Behavior in the premortal life was never LDS doctrine for why they have black skin. In fact, black skin was not directly part of that curse. The book of Moses says black skin came about because the land was cursed with much heat (Moses 7:8).
I haven't recently heard of a black man being denied the priesthood because he's a negro. I think this one really did change.
It was always doctrine that one day they would receive the priesthood. Nothing's changed doctrinally as I said.
I think that they might be toning down. As I've said before, while the Brethren are most definitely anti-gay due to personal prejudice, they are also successful businessmen within an international presence and have grown more tolerant than they appear superficially. They are not theologins nor do they have much interest in doctrine. They certainly aren't "intellectuals". When is the last time they've expressed a rat's ass in any doctrinal matter? They've been trying to undo the damage ETB did for years, in fact. This was a special circumstance, they saw an opportunity to unify with right-wing Christianity and took a calculated risk, hoping to gain some favor. But it didn't work very well. The little bit of support from EVs has not offset the negative press. And now with presidential hopes? Their analysts and third-party consultants have probably convinced them to maintain a low profile on this matter.
One thing you can feel hopeful for, Rollo, is that if the analysts and third party consultants ever run their equations and supporting SSM comes up as promising a statistically significant gain in image that will translate to monetary gains, then the Church will become SSM friendly. But it's unlikely that there will be a material benefit to the Church taking such a position for several years if ever.