Public opinion does not drive or sway LDS doctrine

[_bcspace]

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.

You've answered your own question as to how. A living man may be sealed to more than one woman. Plural marriage is still a doctrine and it hasn't changed. Only the practice of it.

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

But its not a doctrine.

Sure it is. The doctrine always was that they would have the priesthood at some point and now they have. Abraham 1, not being expunged from the scriptures, shows that this doctrine is still valid.

Sure, there has been no official repudiation of the former position, but the position doesn't hold any longer.

The promised as merely been fulfilled. Where is the change in doctrine?

Exactly - so they're lying -

I don't believe they are. But those who do not understand the doctrine, especially those who are hoping for a change and because the Church has indeed presented a different face, are going to think so and that is a good sub issue here. I believe there are a whole host of people who are rejoicing that teh Church is changing it's doctrine when in fact it's not.

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

A reason given, but the doctrine actually resides in Abraham 1 which denies the priesthood to the descendents of Ham.

Does/has revelation ever changed doctrine?

Yes. And revelation has been claimed in the face of public opinion. But has revelation in that case actually changed any doctrines? No, I can't think of any.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

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

Yes, I imagine it will probably stand for another decade or so too. Doctrine changes, but never on the cutting edge.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Wouldn't the removal of the Lectures on Faith from the D&C constitute a change in doctrine?

[_Jason Bourne]

1: Practicing plural marriage in mortality certainly changed due to public opinion, as well as the almost destruction of the church by the US government. LDS leaders vowed they would never ever give it up and it the church did it would be in apostasy. Yet public pressure and the desire of the LDS leaders to see Utah become a state won out and they gave it up. Plural marriage in the after life may be a possibility but current LDS leaders don't teach it is definite or required for exaltation like 19th century leaders did. And when pressed on the issue they simply say they do not know. Maybe this is just a different face for you but it was a major doctrinal shift.

2: Preisthood ban was a change and seems based on public pressure though the church resisted for a long time. Yes doctrine changed because it was doctrinal that blacks were the race of Cain and it was taught that such may have been less valiant in the pre existence.

3: early LDS teachings on the godhead were more in line with Christian orthodoxy as can be seen in the Book of Mormon, the earlier D&C revelations and the Lectures on Faith. the Lectures were decononized because they conflicted with later teachings about the godhead. This is not a public pressure thing but it was a change.

4: the LDS church has changed its position towards homosexuals. Such tendencies are not sinful if not acted upon where as even tendencies once were. The church seems to except that gays are likely not going to change their sexual preference and does not encourage marriage as an option to help "cure" a homosexual. They are no neutral on the nurture vs. nature. Much of this seems due to public pressure or at least the better understanding society has about homosexuality.
But this is not a doctrinal change. And I agree with BC that the church will not change its stance on homosexual marriage and relations. Sexuality, marriage and gender are to tied to how we obtain the highest heaven in the LDS church.

[_Buffalo]

[

Exactly - so they're lying -

I don't believe they are. But those who do not understand the doctrine, especially those who are hoping for a change and because the Church has indeed presented a different face, are going to think so and that is a good sub issue here. I believe there are a whole host of people who are rejoicing that the Church is changing it's doctrine when in fact it's not.

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

A reason given, but the doctrine actually resides in Abraham 1 which denies the priesthood to the descendents of Ham.

So you're agreeing that they're being deliberately deceptive.

The Ham thing is just an extension of Cain in LDS theology - Ham having supposedly been married to a decedent of Cain. Of course it's all bullocks - ancient Jews were a subset of the Canaanites (Canaan being the son of Ham).

[_Darth J]

1. Official Declaration 1 in the Doctrine and Covenants explicitly says that polygamy was ending because of the secular consequences of continuing the practice.

2. The LDS Church has never, ever repudiated the curse of Cain doctrine. Official statements by the First Presidency prior to 1978 make it clear that the priesthood ban based on the alleged lineage of Cain was by commandment of God. Denying objective reality (e.g., Jeffrey Holland and Gordon Hinckley's "we don't know" talking point) is not repudiation.

[_Darth J]

For 50 bonus points, someone explain to me the difference between what BCSpace is currently saying about gay people and what a TBM would have said about black people before 1978.

[_Buffalo]

For 50 bonus points, someone explain to me the difference between what BCSpace is currently saying about gay people and what a TBM would have said about black people before 1978.

The difference is the pre-1978 TBM was overlooking the Church's backpedaling over polygamy, while bcspace is overlooking the Church's backpedaling over polygamy and blacks.

[Guest]

I wonder if Boyd K. Packer will live long enough to do the McConkie Mulligan regarding his diktats about gay people:

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more."

How comforting to know that our living prophets and apostles just make things up and teach their opinions and prejudices as if it is the word of the Lord. Or maybe they just can't tell the difference between thing they have made up and inspiration.

All is well! All is well!

[_Drifting]

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.

It was coincidence that the Church received a revelation reversing the Priesthood ban on black people, shortly after receiving notice that it was going to lose its tax exempt status and shortly after several organisations refused to particpate in sporting events with BYU.

It was coincidence that Joseph received the doctrine (by bcspace definition) now known as the Word of Wisdom shortly after Emma had complained about the Bretheren's addiciton to tobacco and strong drink.

It was coincidence that the Church softened its stance on the doctrine surrounding homosexuality shortly after it received public outcry about its involvement (after it was uncovered from its attempted hiding place) in Proposition 8.

When you think about it, signficant doctrinal statements happen after society has led the way, but I guess this is pure coincidence...