A clear statement....

[_subgenius]

The same arguments you use here could have been/were applied by those Church members advocating against interracial marriage and defending polygamy.

Do you believe the Church has always maintained the exact same views on sexuality, birth control or abortion? As technology and scientific understanding have advanced so has our understanding of those issues. The Church has moved away from labeling homosexuality as a sin as more and more evidence shows that it is not always a choice.

You may be right, the Church may never move to allow gay people a Church sanction marriage, but certainly if it did, it could be done while still maintaining a version of the laws of chastity, where sexual relations are only approved of within a marriage, be it between same sex couples or opposite sex couples.

"The same arguments" is the error in your reasoning....they could be used "on paper"...but not in reality...because of the specifics of the doctrine and the application.
Marriage is not a civil contract in the church...it is a divine instrument inextricably linked to procreation and inextricably linked to the specific gender roles which can only be fulfilled by a father and a mother...this attributes are considered divine by design and implementation.
There is no "political" pressure that can revise such a steeped doctrinal point...it completely relies on opposite sex procreation and opposite sex attributes...all being divinely mandated.
The diversion of blacks and the priesthood can be easily side-stepped since no one ever claimed "white power" but merely the common claim for the mark of Cain...which was incorrectly interpreted....there is no means to misinterpret "procreation".

[_Fence Sitter]

"The same arguments" is the error in your reasoning....they could be used "on paper"...but not in reality...because of the specifics of the doctrine and the application.
Marriage is not a civil contract in the church...it is a divine instrument inextricably linked to procreation and inextricably linked to the specific gender roles which can only be fulfilled by a father and a mother...this attributes are considered divine by design and implementation.
There is no "political" pressure that can revise such a steeped doctrinal point...it completely relies on opposite sex procreation and opposite sex attributes...all being divinely mandated.
The diversion of blacks and the priesthood can be easily side-stepped since no one ever claimed "white power" but merely the common claim for the mark of Cain...which was incorrectly interpreted....there is no means to misinterpret "procreation".

The evidence is overwhelming that political pressure caused the Church to disassociate itself from the "steeped doctrinal point" of polygamy. Should you choose to believe that the changes in Church doctrine regarding polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, or even the rapidly softening stance by the Church against homosexuality, are all part of a divinely guided prophetic process that just happen(ed) to coincide with social movements in the same direction, go right ahead.

[_Bazooka]

...but if you consider this to have been the result of social pressure then please, back up your assertion with evidence....CFR
or concede now that this is simply a fantasy of yours

http://www.sltrib.com/byucougars/ci_13728556

Now you may choose to believe that the activism against racism during the 60's and 70's had no bearing on the decision in 1978 to end the Priesthood ban, but there is no evidence to support your position. Even the Church's own track record on other matters supports my assertion.

For instance, this last Conference a woman prayed at Conference for the first time. That may not have been the result of the extensive letter writing campaign that female members have been waging for the last five months, writing to each Apostle calling for a woman to be able to pray at Conference. That may be just coincidence, at least in your mind.

[_subgenius]

http://www.sltrib.com/byucougars/ci_13728556

Now you may choose to believe that the activism against racism during the 60's and 70's had no bearing on the decision in 1978 to end the Priesthood ban, but there is no evidence to support your position. Even the Church's own track record on other matters supports my assertion.

the burden for evidence is not mine, for it yours because it is you that is making the claim...and to date you have yet to provide evidence that the church revised doctrine due to social pressure. You have no leg to stand on...your concession is duly noted.

"The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning. In fact, by the end of his life in 1844 Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, opposed slavery. During this time some black males were ordained to the priesthood. At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended. Church leaders sought divine guidance regarding the issue and more than three decades ago extended the priesthood to all worthy male members. The Church immediately began ordaining members to priesthood offices wherever they attended throughout the world.

The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject:

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

from 1969 -
"Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, "The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God...."Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's pre-existent state." President McKay has also said, "Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood."

Faithfully your brethren,
The First Presidency
By Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon Tanner

then in 1978 after Kimball lifts the ban
Bruce R. McConkie, in an address to CES employees entitled, "All are alike unto god", states:
“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.”

By 1978, the "social pressure" that you fantasize about was on a serious decline from the levels years before...when the pressure would have been influential. Timelines and actions simply do not support your post's delusional conclusions.

For instance, this last Conference a woman prayed at Conference for the first time. That may not have been the result of the extensive letter writing campaign that female members have been waging for the last five months, writing to each Apostle calling for a woman to be able to pray at Conference. That may be just coincidence, at least in your mind.

wow, your posts have gone deep space....perhaps you should inform the LGBT that they merely need to engage in a 5 month letter writing campaign...

your posts have now become the epitome for a line about straws in Thomas More's Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation.

[_Bazooka]

[deleted]

[MODERATOR NOTE: Please do not deliberately misquote another poster.]

[_ludwigm]

Bruce R. McConkie, in an address to CES employees entitled, "All are alike unto god", states:
“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."

The same words said by the 83 year old David A. Bednar in 2035, after the revelation about the same sex marriage.

I admit, the names changed. He mentioned (in 2035) Spencer W. Kimball and David O. McKay.

[_Fence Sitter]

[deleted]

If the changes were a result of divine intervention why wasn't God leading the way, instead of arriving late to the party?

[_Fence Sitter]

"The same arguments" is the error in your reasoning....they could be used "on paper"...but not in reality...because of the specifics of the doctrine and the application.
Marriage is not a civil contract in the church...it is a divine instrument inextricably linked to procreation and inextricably linked to the specific gender roles which can only be fulfilled by a father and a mother...this attributes are considered divine by design and implementation.
There is no "political" pressure that can revise such a steeped doctrinal point...it completely relies on opposite sex procreation and opposite sex attributes...all being divinely mandated.
The diversion of blacks and the priesthood can be easily side-stepped since no one ever claimed "white power" but merely the common claim for the mark of Cain...which was incorrectly interpreted....there is no means to misinterpret "procreation".

Speaking of the same arguments and errors in "my reasoning", I don't appear to be alone.

“Your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and white races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs until now.... there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”

- LDS First Presidency (George Albert Smith), letter to Virgil H. Sponberg (critic of the anti-black ban), May 5, 1947, quoted in Lester E. Bush, Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: a historical Overview, p. 42

[_subgenius]

Bruce R. McConkie, in an address to CES employees entitled, "All are alike unto god", states:
“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."

The same words said by the 83 year old David A. Bednar in 2035, after the revelation about the same sex marriage.

I admit, the names changed. He mentioned (in 2035) Spencer W. Kimball and David O. McKay.

glad to read that even our image-posting-impeded brethren can offer such a fine example of mistaking apples for oranges.

[_subgenius]

If the changes were a result of divine intervention why wasn't God leading the way, instead of arriving late to the party?

i believe this was found in my previous post on the matter;
"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.”

if you have evidence to the contrary then please post it...otherwise concede that your opinion, like Bazooka/Drifting's, is based on cynicism and tin-foil hat conspiracy theories that, frankly, give the church a heck of lot more credit than it deserves....the amount of complex gambits and cleverly interwoven schemes that you guys imagine goes on behind closed doors is quite entertaining.

Now i have posted my evidence that concludes it was not due to "social pressure".....your turn.