Public opinion does not drive or sway LDS doctrine

[_quark]

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.

Exactly.

And here we have the foundation for a very powerful NOM tool.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Right. Public opinion drives God's opinion, and then God's opinion (through the prophets, of course) sways LDS doctrine.

[_quark]

Right. Public opinion drives God's opinion, and then God's opinion (through the prophets, of course) sways LDS doctrine.

We are at an understanding. Finally, I found a place where people understand!

[_Corpsegrinder]

Darth J:

That's a valid point. The Lectures on Faith were not removed because of public opinion, but because the Church realized it needed to retconJoseph Smith's deciding that Elohim has a physical body.

So the Lectures on Faith were expunged and suppressed in a post hoc effort to cover Joseph’s ass. Okay, I’ll buy that. But seriously, thanks. I’ve always kind of wondered about that.

[_SteelHead]

I'll post the TBM response:

"Correlation is not causation."

So it is coincidental..... and if you believe that I have some excellent real estate available in Florida that is available at a very reasonable price....................

[_honorentheos]

I think a better argument is not in looking for things the church has removed from it's teaching, but instead where public opinions were added to the church's doctrine and teachings. The word of wisdom comes to mind as the most obvious, and changing, example. It is changing in that what one finds in the scripture has little to do with the actual doctine as enforced in the temple recommend interview. The WOW is only understandable if one takes a cultural view of it rather than a strict one based on the D&C.

If one were to take the time to investigate the running parallels between LDS belief and the evangelical right through the last century, one would probably see further signs of "the philosophies of men" being mingled with scripture.

My opinion - BC's fav line that more or less declares any Mormon who isn't politically conservative to be in violation of their gospel promises is another.

The world is infusing itself into the church in ways that BC not only finds acceptable, but would argue "to the pain" to defend.

[_bcspace]

Did the doctrine of plural marriage change? It doesn't appear to have changed at all.

Exaltation was once impossible without having a harem. Not anymore.

CFR

If one were to take the time to investigate the running parallels between LDS belief and the evangelical right through the last century, one would probably see further signs of "the philosophies of men" being mingled with scripture.

My opinion - BC's fav line that more or less declares any Mormon who isn't politically conservative to be in violation of their gospel promises is another

Except that there has been essentially no evolution in LDS doctrine that applies to this. Conservatism today happens to be closely alinged with LDS doctrine and liberalism is about as antithetical to it as one can get. If that comparison ever changes or gets reversed, I predict it won't be LDS doctirne that changes.

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

I don't see how it could.

[_Brackite]

The LDS Doctrine on birth control has changed.

Large Families No longer Necessary - Small Families No Longer a Sin:
http://www.mrm.org/large-families

[_Gadianton]

The Church's stance on H only proves that it is swayed by public opinion. Thank you BC, for demonstrating once again, the Church is an institute of man, and not a God.

The public holds more than one opinion. The particular public opinion the Church is "swayed" by is the opinion of conservative protestant Christianity. Many of the brethren today are far less personally invested in the fight against H than the Church has taken, and their only interest in the matter is to win a popularity contest with conservative Christians. It's all about one thing: profit$. It's the Brethren's financial greed that finds them holding stakes in a battle they otherwise would sweep under the rug.

The Church only repudiated their racist doctrines after all but the most unrepentant KKK-inspired Christians sects were in the clear. At that time, the Brethren were part armchair theologins and part corporate yes-men, so they were partial to keeping pure doctrine and did so until the bitter end. Today, church officials are up to 90% corporate yes-men and only the eldest of the bunch really have any opinions on doctrines at all. The rising generation of church leaders are former executives from an increasingly international business culture. Today's businessmen outsource, travel abroad for business, enjoy the company and services of women from different cultures, and are practiced in workplace equality ethic.

BCSpace gives 10 years for his test to complete because he knows that it will be at least twice that long before mainstream Christianity would have a chance at accepting gays; which implies he knows how doctrine really is informed.

A proper test would be to a) break with the crowd today and renounce anti-gay doctrine or b) in the future, if conservative mainstream comes to accept gays, remain fundamentalistic and take the market hit.

As it stands, the Church is acting exactly as we'd expect it to act in respect to its target market.

[_bcspace]

Large Families No longer Necessary - Small Families No Longer a Sin:
http://www.mrm.org/large-families

To not selfishly limit one's family size is still doctrine. It's merely been reinforced that what a couple decides is between them and the Lord. No doctrinal change that I can see.

The Church's stance on H only proves that it is swayed by public opinion

What is "H"? Homosexuality? No, no changes there either. Just an increased emphasis on loving the sinner which has always been LDS doctrine.

BCSpace gives 10 years for his test to complete because he knows that it will be at least twice that long before mainstream Christianity would have a chance at accepting gays;

What do you want? 30 years? 50 years? 100 years? You got it.

which implies he knows how doctrine really is informed.

I do. But how the above implies that, I don't know.

As it stands, the Church is acting exactly as we'd expect it to act in respect to its target market.

I'm still looking for examples of how LDS doctrine has been swayed by public opinion. Do you have any?