Patrick Mason on Politics in the Church, Elder Holland, and Proclaim Peace
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 08. 2024
- Latter-day Saint Scholar Patrick Mason
Visit our Website here: www.cwicmedia.com
If you like this video, consider subscribing to Cwic Media using this Link!
czcams.com/users/CwicMedia?s...
As political divides increase and intensify both in the US and in the Church, how do we hold it together? What was the significance of Elder Holland's BYU speech and when it comes to the family, what is doctrine? In Patrick's new book, Proclaim Peace, how should we look at conflict? And is there a political problem in academia?
Patrick's Book - Proclaim Peace; The Restoration's Answer to an Age of Conflict - amzn.to/2Z0U1TQ
17:03 - Elder Holland's BYU Speech and the Doctrine of the Family
24:46 - The temple and the Doctrine of the Family
38:03 - Enoch
43:25 - A Theology of Peace - Conflict and Creation
54:47 - Conflict and the Doctrine of Christ with the Nephites and Lamanites
101:19 - Assertive Love
104:40 - Why was Jesus killed?
1:09:57 - Negative Peace and the conditions of Zion
1:18:52 - The political state of academia
1:27:13 - Mormon Studies
********************
➡️ Cwic Show relates real-world, current events for faith-based commentary and conversations. We address The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, politics, pop culture, the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and gospel principles in a faith-based manner. We support the Restored Church of Jesus Christ and fight the disinformation that is so pervasive online.
Home of the Cwic Show, Cwic Media Come Follow Me Series, and the Cwic Interpreters that help you see the scriptures in a new light. Once you follow us for a while, you will never see the scriptures the same again!
Cwic Media - like "Quick Media" Cwic is an Old English word that means "Intelligent" and "Alive"
********************
Disclaimer
The products and content offered by Cwic Media are neither made, provided, approved nor endorsed by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
All content and products are solely those of Cwic Media and not those of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
********************
#CwicShow #PatrickMason #FamilyProclamation
As a same-sex attracted member of the Church, the way this subject is talked about really frustrates me sometimes. I was someone who was living a gay lifestyle until God came and changed my heart and I feel a bit dismissed when it becomes this issue of "feeling bad" for people in my situation who are members of the church. I feel bad for those who have not yet found Jesus.
Now am I saying it suddenly became easy peasy? No. My attractions haven't changed. But God touched my life, and I put in the work enough to where it isn't really a struggle for me. At least definitely not compared to other struggles in my life. Let's not talk about changing the doctrine to try to show "empathy" to people. You're limiting someone's growth in the gospel if you're constantly telling them that their struggle is uniquely difficult and makes it "harder" for them to follow God. Tell people the truth. Tell people the doctrine of the family. Love them with truth. It's truth that changed my heart and turned me to God from a life of sin. We can spend time to listen and understand, sure. But in almost every case that LGBT issues and the gospel is talked about, it's almost never from the perspective of someone like me whose life was changed by following the doctrine. Instead it's almost always from the perspective of those who are "hurt" by the doctrine or seeking to change it.
I applaud your response. We all have our own struggles some are the same others are different but struggles they are. Let's keep linking arms and continuing along that path towards God with the iron rod in hand.
@@ruckin3 thank you for sharing that! I think it's a good point to bring that up as well though. LGBT members don't have a monopoly on living a single life. There are other reasons people won't be able to marry here. Ultimately what matters is seeking to follow God and keep covenants we make, regardless of our situation.
And to add to that, some gay members even have successful man and woman marriages (such as Ty Mansfield). I don't see it being an option for me though, so I seek to put my faith in God and push forward accomplishing what I can in this life, and waiting for God to make up the difference in the next. Best of luck and blessings on your journey!
I appreciate this. Thank you. Direct talk is always good.
Thank you for sharing your feelings.
I have a friend in her forties who has a testimony of Christ, his gospel and doctrine. She went on mission, and married a young male member. They have children and a good relationship and tells me their physical relationship is tender and good. They abide by the doctrine on family and law of chastity. She made a decision to chose this path and feels no inclination to change the doctrine because she was attracted to other women.
I believe all of us are to obey God's law and doctrine. I don't "feel sorry" for same sex members but I don't feel sorry for anyone. I feel compassion for anyone's struggles. I am single after divorce and I am not asking church to change law of Chastity for heterosexuals so I can have sexual affection and keep my temple recommend. If I want that more than anything else there are plenty of Christ based churches I can go to that are fine with fornication outside of marriage. But I have a testimony of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that a prophet of God receives revelation from the Lord and that trumps the other.
Well put!
Perhaps this is controversial, but I don’t want unity. I want the Truth. I want to know and understand the Truth. I believe that Jesus Christ IS the truth. I believe unity comes as a natural byproduct of seeking Christ and striving to become like Him.
Truth is definitely the higher value of the two.
From Ezra T. Benson’s talk: Our Immediate Responsibility”
There are some who would have us believe that the final test of the rightness of a course is whether everyone is united on it. But the church does not seek unity, simply for unities sake. The unity for which the Lord prayed and which President McKay speaks is the only unity which God honors - that is, “unity in righteousness,” unity in principle.
We cannot compromise good and evil in an attempt to have peace and unity in the Church, any more than the Lord could have compromised with Satan in order to avoid the War in Heaven.
Well said, that's how I feel. Acceptance of truth, Jesus Christ, will bring unity. Only those who truly want truth will have this unity, which only comes through Christ, and will live it as he does.
Agree!
This definition of "Truth" becomes insanely subjective. Is "Jesus Christ" basically just a figurative symbol in this regard?
I don't understand why it would be the brethren's job to "hold it all together". I've always thought it was their job to teach and preach Christ's doctrine whether people like it or not. Throughout history this is what prophets have done which is why they've never been all that popular. I don't believe in changing true doctrine in order to appease sinful behavior. If we are to be a light to the world shouldn't we stick to true principles?
As we discussed in the interview, they have the mantle and responsibility of creating a Zion people.
@@CwicShow The most important thing for the leaders is to teach what God wants and expects and run the church accordinly. If the people don't like it then they can weed themselves out and go find something that suits them better. You don't see God playing this game. He is pretty cut and dried about it.
@@icecreamladydriver1606 perhaps as most don't have the benefit of being raised in good homes where the gospel of Christ is cherished anymore, the brethren use patience and loving persuasion with the inhabitants of the world. For now. This is a fallen world, and in it's current state, it makes some sense to have a large tent for the chance to bring the most possible to Christ. Never lose love for others! The times you speak of will come soon enough, and the tares will be separated out.
Beautifully said, Tiffany! There is a biblical passage (Ephesians 4:11-15) that ought not be forgotten or disregarded by anyone in the Church, no matter what their calling or their political persuasion, and to save everyone the annoyance of looking it up, I will copy it here. “And he gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; FOR THE PERFECTING OF THE SAINTS FOR THE WORK OF THE MINISTRY, FOR THE EDIFYING OF THE BODY OF CHRIST; TILL WE ALL COME IN THE UNITY OF THE FAITH, AND OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SON OF GOD, UNTO A PERFECT MAN… THAT WE HENCEFORTH BE NO MORE CHILDREN, TOSSED TO AND FRO, AND CARRIED ABOUT WITH EVERY WIND OF DOCTRINE…… but speaking the truth in love…” Honestly, I don’t think anyone should try to “hold it together.” That’s God’s problem. Our responsibility is to live according to HIS doctrine and no one else’s. If some leave the Church because it isn’t popular, I am happy for it. Such people are exercising their agency as they should. I just cannot under any circumstances talk myself into chasing after everyone whose views differ from my own. Experience has taught me that such is an exercise in futility. People will choose where they want to be, “…for… he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life (Alma 28:4)”, and that’s exactly what they ought to do. It is their privilege and their responsibility. As I have said before in other words, when the Church becomes too wishy washy, “carried about by every wind of doctrine” for the sake of popularity, then I will be out of the Church in a heartbeat, and that because the Church will have failed to provide guidelines, examples, and doctrines with the integrity I expect. The Word of God means something to me, but the word of popular opinion doesn’t mean a damned thing. What is popular is never the same two days in a row, and it has no value as a lifestyle model.
I'm a married man and have struggled with attraction to women to whom I'm not married. Is the church supposed to change the law of chastity to fit my struggles? I don't think so. I need to come unto Christ and seek to do his will...even if there are challenges in my marriage.
Thank you! This is KEY!!! We have laws to follow to keep our covenants. No matter what temptations come our way!
Bingo. Jesus has already been clear on the expectations of God. Even going as far as to say to completely disavow sex in order to enter the kingdom of God. See Matthew 19:12.
Disavow sex? Among the many traits & attributes of God, he is a sexual being & includes it as one of the blessings of becoming a celestial being - eternal increase. It’s part of our marriage vows, to cleave unto each other & to multiply & replenish the earth. Part of our sealing covenant at the temple altar is to receive our spouse unto ourself & become one… that’s physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, an all-encompassing covent & blessing.
Absolutely right!
It is simple. You either accept the gospel as the Brethren say it is or you don’t. You are in or you are out. God said so. There is no middle ground where “woke” people change the Church.
I'm shocked that this person being interviewed, an academic, a "learned man," believes that the doctrine of plural marriage has changed. The doctrine has not changed, it still exists, we're just NOT practicing it at the moment. I'm floored that this person doesn't understand that. And now I see my comment is redundant but I'll post it anyway. I should have first checked to see if someone else had posted the same thing.
Another place he gets it wrong is during the violence segment of the conversation. He knows as he quoted, that Nephi and his people built a temple and also made swords. They made swords for self-defense. West Point was established to train officers for our military that, with the exception of some dark moments, has been an army of defense. Defense not only for ourselves but for others. There was NO WAY to negotiate our way out of a war with crazies like Hitler or the crazies sitting on the Japanese military council. Not to mention that Christ ordered the Israelites to conquer the land of Canan. The House of Israel killed men, women, and children by order of Christ. Sooooo he is a little confused about these things.
It’s a wish, and he wants detach himself from realty, his progressive circles would reject him other wise.
"When they are learned, they think they are wise."
The issue is that doctrine of equal magnitude has changed in the church’s history. It used to be doctrine that interracial marriage was sinful. (1,2)
When announcing the Priesthood ban, Brigham taught “This colored race have been subjected to severe curses... And until the curse is removed bv Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences… they cannot share in the Priesthood; they cannot bear rule; they cannot bear rule in any place until the curse is removed from them; they are a “servant of servants.”(2) The Curse of Cain, Blood Atonement, Adam-God theory, and Pre-mortal Fence Sitter doctrines, all of which were taught by the prophets, are now denounced as false doctrine.
Bruce R. McConkie said: “Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine… I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among those.”
1. First Presidency Letter,1947 July 17. Special Collections & Archives Merrill-Cazier Library Utah State University
2. The Teachings of President Brigham Young Vol. 3 1852-1854, p. 26
3. Bruce R. McConkie, Letter to Eugene England regarding Brigham Young’s Adam God doctrine, February 19, 1981, p. 6-7
I disagree that Section 132 and The Family: A Proclamation to the World are at odds with one another. Section 132 outlines the laws governing plural marriage, or in other words defines what plural marriage correctly looks like. Marriage, as defined in the Family Proclamation says, "marriage is between a man and a woman."
Plural marriage has two words to define the principle "plural" and "marriage". The definition of the word "marriage" remains unchanged. Only the context of a plurality has been applied to it. In a plural marriage relationship, each union is still between a man and a woman. When a man is married to another wife, the marriage is still between a man and a woman, albeit the same man. They are not at odds with one another.
Agreed. I wish I would have brought that point up to Patrick. I would like to know his response.
@@iDad7276you just have to accept all of the doctrine of Christ which plural marriage is part of it but that doesn’t mean you practice it without the lords commandment it’s a tool that has been put away theirs plenty of people in the world now and they are good and need to repent just like myself
I like what Rob Kay says about it. If God says to have 1 wife, you have 1 wife. If he wants plural marriage than you do it. What he says to not do - DON'T!
You've really triggered something in me with this "hurting" narrative about LGBTQ+ people in the Church. I'll say right up front that I'm one of them, minus the hurting part. I'm not saying that nobody is hurting, but I can guarantee that are a great many of us who would not describe ourselves as hurting over these issues. Everyone hurts over something but the answer isn't to change the doctrine of the Church because a large number of people are hurting about it.
If I'm hurting about anything related to LGBTQ+ issues, it's over the great many people who point an accusing finger at me and say that I'm somehow hurting society by being married to a woman for 45 years and being a father and grandfather. Even that doesn't hurt a lot. I can handle it.
There are many more things in my 45 years of marriage that have been much more painful than my feelings about men. I'm talking about financial, health, and social problems that we've faced just like any other parents. Life sometimes hurts in a variety of ways, and can't be minimized.
What bothers me the most is victimhood by proxy. While I appreciate the attempt at empathy, no you can't even come close to imagining what it's like to be me, so stop trying. It's my journey, my thorn in the flesh to drive me to grace. No commentator can understand it. No other LGBTQ+ person can tell me how to feel. I don't claim to know what they feel or how hard it is for them. I deeply recognize that it isn't up to me how they choose to handle it. How others choose to deal with it is totally between them and God. Just allow me the same privilege.
The doctrine should be revealed, not negotiated, and certainly not based on how people feel.
Policy can change, but doctrine doesn’t!
You are so right.
I’ve never heard of him and I am weary of him. What they are discussing in the beginning of the podcast is exactly what I see happening in my ward and the battle is real over the doctrine of the family proclamation.
I think you meant 'wary' but 'weary' also works. 😊
The issue is that doctrine of equal magnitude has changed in the church’s history. It used to be doctrine that interracial marriage was sinful. (1,2)
When announcing the Priesthood ban, Brigham taught “This colored race have been subjected to severe curses... And until the curse is removed bv Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences… they cannot share in the Priesthood; they cannot bear rule; they cannot bear rule in any place until the curse is removed from them; they are a “servant of servants.”(2) The Curse of Cain, Blood Atonement, Adam-God theory, and Pre-mortal Fence Sitter doctrines, all of which were taught by the prophets, are now denounced as false doctrine.
Bruce R. McConkie said: “Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine… I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among those.”
1. First Presidency Letter,1947 July 17. Special Collections & Archives Merrill-Cazier Library Utah State University
2. The Teachings of President Brigham Young Vol. 3 1852-1854, p. 26
3. Bruce R. McConkie, Letter to Eugene England regarding Brigham Young’s Adam God doctrine, February 19, 1981, p. 6-7
Too often, I think “Unity” means “come around to our way of thinking.” I think if we are to achieve unity, it can only come by unifying under the Doctrine of Christ. And that includes the Doctrine of the Family. I don’t agree with Patrick’s assertion that the doctrine surrounding marriage changed.
Patrick was referring to plural wives as to before and now back to one wife in this life, that’s where it changed.
@@renatep.7566 but that is the practice that has changed. The doctrine has not changed to the point Tanner and many others made.
Marion G. Romney: There are those among us who are trying to serve the Lord without offending the devil.
To be honest I felt my African blood boiling on more than one occasion watching this, so I suppose we really are more conservative than most.
I loved what you had to say about the changes in the temple that would need to take place. I don’t think Patrick has thought through all the scenarios, you seemed to catch him flat footed.
This would NOT be a simple change of doctrine as some would have us believe.
YES! EXACTLY!
I'm of the opinion that if that doctrine would ever change, then not only is the church not true, but it never was
Patrick has in fact thought through many scenarios as that is the way he works. He leaves all possibilities open and so should we.
@@kevinharper9190 I understand this perspective and have felt it deeply in my heart and believed it in my mind for 30+ years. It makes sense that it would be the case especially if God is unchanging. Are you aware of doctrines that some say have changed i.e. polygamy being required for exhalation? If so how do you reconcile this? Not an attack it just seems that when a prophet proclaims from the pulpit and in scripture that it is a doctrine from heaven it’s harder for me to dismiss it as just a fallible man’s opinion.
My blood boiled too.
Thank you for interviewing Brother Mason. Thanks to this interview, I now know I cannot trust him, any more than I can trust Julie Hanks or Blaire Ostler. Like others in the comments, his comments don't feel right. I'll take "non-theologian" Elder Holland over Patrick Mason any day.
True statement and it also brought a smile. 🙂
Here's a few things I find myself often pondering about regarding these subjects:
1. Why is it ok to have faith, hope, and a belief that a person born blind or deaf, or with some other deformity or disability, even lack of fertility, will someday, by virtue of the atonement and resurrection of Christ, likewise be resurrected with a perfected body whereby all that was unjustly or unfairly deprived of them in their temporal state due to the nature of a fallen world will be restored and corrected? Not that anything is or was inherently wrong with them as a child of God and as a person, but that which was and is abnormal and imperfect about their temporal and mortal body, is often accepted as something they may well have to endure through the course of mortality but which will yet be made perfect at the time of resurrection. Of course it it is understood that none of these conditions, that otherwise may set one back in mortality in some way, shape or form, make them any less of a person, any less deserving of our love and empathy. In fact, we do great things across our society and communities to help bear up their burdens and help them adapt to live their best life in spite of these mortal conditions and where possible, enable them to contribute to our communities. We may not be perfect at this, but it's the ideal many of us strive to do. Sometimes medical research and treatment is praised and sought after for helping people to manage and cope with their condition if not able to be outright cured of so many conditions deemed "abnormal". And if it is said in good faith of those for whom there is yet no "fix" or treatment, that they are "not broken" and that they are "perfect the way they are", it doesn't mean that it's expected they'll maintain such conditions once resurrected and throughout their course through eternity.
And yet, when it comes to those born along the LGBTQ+ spectrum, it is now somehow wrong and harmful to think of that condition as being only a temporal condition and only a characteristic of a mortal body in a fallen world. Instead, it's insisted on being a part of their eternal identity, rather than another type of temporal imperfection or condition like other types of conditions one can be born with. It's somehow offensive for one to believe the Atonement would or could "correct" such conditions at the time of resurrection and make "right" that which this fallen world deprived them of in their mortality.
2. If the theology and doctrine is that there is not only a Heavenly Father but also a Heavenly Mother and our respective potential as mortal humans is to become like them and inherit all that they have in glory and power, then this logically implies including some sort of godly form of procreative power. It stands to reason why the biblical pattern of marriage is the pattern by which the Church defines marriage to be and continues to be faithful to. As the scriptures say, "on Earth as it is in Heaven". If Adam and Eve serve as a model for our earthly potential (ability to marry, become one flesh, procreate and replenish the earth with mortal posterity), then our Heavenly Father and our Heavenly Mother serve as a model for what our eternal potential is (ability to marry, become one flesh, procreate, and replenish worlds of our creation with spiritual posterity...and all that entails in having eternal increase).
Given this pattern for marriage, it's very hard to comprehend how any eternal union of two people of the same sex and gender could successfully share their procreative powers with each other to create new life for new worlds when such can't even be done for new human life in this world. A same-sex relationship and marriage simply cannot unlock the wellspring of life. It cannot equally achieve the unique and sacred sacramental symbolism that the soul of both a man and a woman can through marriage as ordained of God, each with their unique and respective attributes, both spiritual and physical. Therefore, in order for a marriage to achieve its whole and full potential and thus fulfill the purposes of God, which is in large part to create new life and participate in bringing to pass immortality and eternal life, such a marriage requires the unique attributes of both a man and a woman, like Adam and Eve, and like our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
And yet, for a church to remain faithful to the biblical pattern of marriage now days is offensive, harmful, wrong, and so forth, hence all the theological work being done among so many to change these fundamental aspects, especially those more unique to LDS theology.
3. Does the fact that polygamy is no longer practiced as it once was in the earlier days of the LDS church really represent a change in church doctrine and thereby definition of marriage? The way I see it, even in polygamy, each marriage or sealing a man shares with a woman is in itself a unique marriage that still represents a union between an individual man and an individual woman. While the man may be a part of multiple marriages, they are indeed multiple unique marriages between a man and a woman, hence the term "plural marriage". The definition of marriage being a union between a man and a woman remains the same, even when a man may have multiple marriages with other women. Likewise, if an individual woman had marriages with multiple men, those marriages would still be unique and individual marriages, each of them being between a woman and a man. Polygamy is not one single marriage between one man and multiple women, nor one woman and multiple men. If Polygamy were legal, there would indeed be a unique certificate made out for each respective marriage between a man and his multiple wives as well as that of a woman and her multiple husbands. Each certificate would represent and document a unique and individual marriage between a man and a woman regardless of how many other women that man may be married to, and visa versa.
Also, I've seen and read through much discussion on various forums online with some interesting cases made for how polygamy in the LDS Church may not have in fact originated with Joseph Smith but with other contemporaries of his, some of whom may have wrongly framed him for its origins and introduction into church practice and arguments based in scripture made stating polygamy is and has always been an abomination. I've also seen scriptural based arguments showing it can in certain circumstances be ordained of God. Assuming the latter to be the case, it would take an immense amount of selflessness, sacrifice, charity, patience, and putting off "natural man" tendencies for any and all parties involved to willingly and successfully participate in polygamous relationships.
4. When it comes to ordination of women, I don't know exactly why that remains the case, be it in the Catholic Church or the LDS Church. However, I do wonder why Jesus only officially ordained men to be his official apostles. Some might say, well it was just a custom of the times and culture. I'd agree that could be true if it weren't for the fact that Jesus certainly didn't care to be faithful to all the other customs and traditions of the culture he carried out his mortal ministry to. In fact, it was his failure to do just that which set him at odds with so many of the cultural leaders and inevitably led to his arrest and crucifixion. No, Christ didn't care for maintaining cultural customs and traditions of his time or remaining in harmony with the will of the leaders of his community, civic or religious. He only cared to remain faithful to his Father's will, which for reasons unknown, didn't include ordaining an equal number of women, or even just one woman to the apostleship. I can only surmise that for whatever reason that was, it is the same reason why LDS church leadership has not and will continue to be reluctant to extend ordinations to women. That said...there have been times where I've wished and would have been grateful for my own wife to hold the priesthood or at least had power and authority to give me a priesthood blessing the way I am able to serve her and our children with when called upon.
Excellent points all round.
Thank you!
I too think all things will be made perfect in the resurrection. Mortality brings with it an assortment of trials and imperfections. We all experience them in some way. Lots of healing to look forward to.
Excellent points. I’ve made similar but less eloquent arguments. Well said.
Fantastic response, so true. My take on women and priesthood is that which President Nelson has recently talked about, good enough for me. Men and women are equal in god's eyes; neither is the man without the woman or the woman without the man in the Lord. My eternal companion was promised to be a queen and I a king when being married in the temple - if we are faithful to our covenants. When in the temple I did not hear anything said that I (holding the Priesthood) am more important than my wife, or she (being able to bear children) more than me. I did hear it said we were to become one though. When I am ill or stressed my wife, as instructed my church leaders, offers a 'prayer of faith' on my behalf, and her faith in Jesus to me is good enough. She will discuss with me if she feels inspired that we need to call the Elders. Such great blessings that the Lord offers us and hope you get a double portion. Hope to see you in the eternities.
Family is the heart of the GOSPEL. Children need a mother and father . Women and men are not interchangeable .
As I listen to this episode the following comes to mind, and my hope is the brethren will stand by this, beckoning the Church as a whole:
“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15
Yes we “need to find common ground in the Church” but more importantly we need to hold fast to faith in the Lord and in His doctrine.
Agreed. I mean it's good that we can get along with each other. That said, I'm not changing my views because they offend my gay neighbor.
The issue is that doctrine of equal magnitude has changed in the church’s history. It used to be doctrine that interracial marriage was sinful. (1,2)
When announcing the Priesthood ban, Brigham taught “This colored race have been subjected to severe curses... And until the curse is removed bv Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences… they cannot share in the Priesthood; they cannot bear rule; they cannot bear rule in any place until the curse is removed from them; they are a “servant of servants.”(2) The Curse of Cain, Blood Atonement, Adam-God theory, and Pre-mortal Fence Sitter doctrines, all of which were taught by the prophets, are now denounced as false doctrine.
Bruce R. McConkie said: “Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine… I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among those.”
1. First Presidency Letter,1947 July 17. Special Collections & Archives Merrill-Cazier Library Utah State University
2. The Teachings of President Brigham Young Vol. 3 1852-1854, p. 26
3. Bruce R. McConkie, Letter to Eugene England regarding Brigham Young’s Adam God doctrine, February 19, 1981, p. 6-7
@@bbbarham6264Brigham never taught the blood atonement that’s BS and he never taught the Adam god theory those quotes are out of context
@@bbbarham6264Bruce R Mcconkie is correct otherwise the lord robs prophets of their agency which he shall never do or all is undone
As a young single man, I knew the church was true, but I could not have sexual intercourse with anyone and remain true to the covenant. One's sexual orientation matters not. One can be faithfully part of the church and attain the Celestial Kingdom. Are there burdens to bear in remaining faithful--- yes!
Are we really now debating if the doctrine of the family is a core tenet of the faith? That’s not even debatable, saying it’s not is blasphemy, it’s really that simple.
I absolutely love this show. However, this particular episode left me feeling “off”. I kept pondering about my feelings and the things that were presented by your guest. I kept thinking how much I disliked the idea of people proposing to change the doctrine of the family/law of chastity. As I thought of this, I thought of writings I have read teaching that “man” is really two parts of the whole “adam”, the masculine and the feminine. I think viewing the male and female as complimentary to one another has little to do with just roles here on earth such as who changes the baby and who brings home the paycheck. I think it has to do with priesthood roles of women using her priesthood power in bringing mankind through the veil from the spirit world to mortality and men using their priesthood power to bring men from mortality back into the presence of God. I think of it as both priesthood power but their using it at different times and for similar but complementary assignments.
To think that this most beautiful assignments that are of the most sacred nature could be changed by a demand or marching in parades saddens me. I think it is in those quiet and solemn moments, especially in the temples, the beautiful truths of the oneness of man and woman together can be taught to each of us individually. I think it is often viewed that social advocacy to promote change needs to be loud, and strong. It seems many believe to encourage change means to have thousands of followers, or dialogues to persuade others to join in the cause. But what if the Lord does provide understanding. What if he does provide clarity but that by virtue of the sacredness of the doctrine it is taught to us one by one by personal revelation. It is said that a study of doctrine can change behavior more than a study of behavior can change behavior (I am sure I have quoted this inaccurately). What if instead of campaigning for a change in doctrine or praying that more liberal church leaders will be called, what if we study and pray with humility and beg for personal revelation to be taught the sacred truths of why, and how eternal marriage is between a man and a woman. Instead of judging others, perhaps we can truly feel love and compassion toward those on both sides of this difficult issue and pray that we all might find those solemn and quiet moments to be taught truth and be willing to accept truth even if it goes against our current understanding. Don’t we all want additional light and understanding?
Wonderful words!
Absolutely great words.
Man and woman are eternal, why people want to give God advice? I see that academics really are deceived. Years a go when I was young ( in the eighties) I learned that in the future the adversary will use our intelligence against ourselves. I see this happening right now. The nature of god is unchangeable so are we.
That is your gift of discernment talking. Trust it!
Classic “in the world not of the world”. Society is ever changing, Gods word does not. Those, even those that believe themselves to be faithful members of the church, that believe that God will change to their own desires, are gravely mistaken.
Which tension is greater, the desire for a gay male member to be with another man or the desire of a straight male member to be with multiple women? We all have tension. The test in life is will we put God first? Nobody escapes the test.
"We know that it has not always been the doctrine of the Church that marriage is a union between A man and A woman, so the doctrine of the Church has changed around marriage." Patrick Mason is really twisting definitions here to make that statement. The doctrine has NOT changed on marriage. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman - even during polygamy, that doctrine was not changed. A marriage was still a union of one man and one woman, a man with more than wife was married to multiple women, but the women weren't married to each other. Each relationship was a separate marriage. And the doctrine that God could authorize more than one marriage has been around for a long time (in Jacob in the Book of Mormon, as well as being a biblical practice), it wasn't a modern creation or changing of any doctrine. A same-sex union has absolutely no historical or doctrinal basis, doesn't further God's commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, and directly violates the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman; whereas polygamy does play a role in furthering that commandment without violating the definition of marriage or twisting any doctrines.
Marriage was defined by God with our first parents on the earth; it has never been re-defined. Polygamy does not redefine marriage, it authorizes a person to be in more than one marriage but the definition remains the same.
I agree with this.
Thank you for pointing this out. The twisting of definitions you mentioned is something we're increasingly seeing among many academics in the Church, other liberal members, to say nothing of those who have already left the faith.
@@jaredshipp9207 I think it's done inadvertently by most people. When you have in mind a result that you want, you tend to understand things in a way that reaches that result. We are all guilty of the same bias, so we have to be careful to make sure we are putting the truth (and loyalty to Christ) as our ultimate goal. On the other side, we also have to be careful of the tendency to put the word or the law before Christ himself, as the Jews did.
@@CwicShow To the point you made in the video, the burden that lgbt brothers and sister carry is massive, and should we not make effort to help and find room for them? I know you want to based on your videos, but how do we strike the balance between telling God what we want and finding His will for us?
It's a topic I've had to come around on since I grew up in the typical view on homosexuality, with very little charitable perspectives on the issue and dismissiveness about the difficulty of the topic.
Standing my ground and saying "X is doctrine, and if you try to work around it, you are in apostasy" is not necessarily the right thing to do. Or maybe it is. I don't know.
@@CwicShow so do you agree the doctrine that allows us to be in more than one marriage here on earth has changed? Or am I still misunderstanding what constitutes doctrine?
Quote from the Family Proclamation….”Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.” Simply put God is not happy with the current trend happening in our society. That trend will be the main reason this continent is depopulated by God yet again. While that is happening the faithful will be building up New Jerusalem and most likely will be practicing plural marriage again. Building Zion presupposes the exclusion of the wicked, it is not a basis for the argument of inclusion.
Well said. I don’t see things improving, hence the need for a “young lion” to tear the people of this land into pieces. See 3 Nephi 21.
You got that right, the Lost Ten Tribes and the antichrist will be cleansing the land soon... by "depopulating the continent"
I have to constantly remind myself not to blame Patrick directly for the choices my sister has made. Still, the fact remains, this guys books and podcast appearances played a role in my sister leaving the church. In particular, his focus on and overstating of the fallibility of prophets and apostles is clumsily stated and results in stumbling blocks for many in faith crisis.
Many things I disagreed with Mr. Mason. His words just don’t “taste” right.
Wolf in Sheep's clothing.
He states that he doesn’t believe any biography will be written about him, but he forgets that Jacob (under the direction of his brother, the prophet Nephi) foretells of the types of people who will waste the days of their probation.
And in 2 Nephi 9:28 he warns: “When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.”
I’m sure the biography of my failures is contained in parts of the Book of Mormon too, but at least I recognize my failings and I’m not headed straight towards the fate that this professor and his believing audience is. I didn’t want to listen to this podcast at first since I knew there’d be sweet tempting lies sewn in, but I’m glad to be able to listen and not once get derailed from my understanding of doctrine and true principles.
I didn't know that our church teaches that you are born gay, or can be born gay. (35:33). My feeling is we may be born with certain tendencies, but not necessarily born gay, with no choice as to how we live. I think the Church is conservative naturally. Anti abortion, do not steal or damage others, against fornication & adultery, etc.. I do think Patrick is a great persuader who likes to wander into gray areas that cause a lot of confusion and lead others to apostasy. All of our focus should be on Christ and the doctrines we know today, and avoid speculation. It is much easier to focus on Christ and have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the ultimate healer & I love to hear the other perspective of those who have lived in sin, and turned it over to the Lord, and live his Gospel!!
Please find the two part episones where Cwik media interviews Terryl and Nathanial Givins. A father and son team who wrote a book about faith. I can't recall the title. I am so sorry about your sister! Watching the Givens talk about faith in a whole new and different light just might help your sister with her faith crisis! I hope this helps.
Why does it even need to be asked if the doctrine of the family
is a central doctrine? The whole point of why we're here, the Plan of Salvation, the "eternal round" that is the work of God, is to become like our Heavenly Parents - an exalted Man and Woman. This preceded even Jehovah being chosen as the Savior. It's at the center and base of it all. You throw that out, you throw out everything. You can't separate the doctrine of the family from the doctrine of Christ.
Correct Jared, to ask if its a central doctrine means that hundreds of years of revealed doctrine and scriptural truth MUST be ignored. No, this is one doctrine that is NOT and CANNOT change...
Straight up 100% agreement!
Yes, Elder Oaks said as much when he said that people who don't accept the doctrine of the family don't understand the Plan of Salvation. The plan doesn't work without the doctrine of the family.
I totally agree with your assessment this is exactly why we're here, and the doctrines of men don't change the doctrines of God!
It's great that Greg can bring these guests onto his vlog who are parroting progressive, thought whether they themselves are woke to making these changes in doctrine or not. Keeping channels open with them gives insight into how these issues are progressing in time. He always has genuine interest in his guests having read much of what they have written. Being gracious and kind are wonderful qualities in all situations. Hats off to you, Greg!
Patrick holds the Lenard Arrington in mormon history and culture at USU. That's interesting.
I think Arrington should be spelled with a Capitol ' *E* ' .
@@rconger384 meaning he was in “E”rror?
I leave it to Elder Bednar to handle progressive journalists better than Patrick Mason did.
So Patrick holds the Leonard Arrington in Mormon History and Culture at Utah State? I think that explains a lot about where his ideas are coming from.
Well stated. You need to read Hannah Stoddard regard Leonard Arrington.
So far he has touched on the following false teachings: collective salvation, economic justice (which is contrary to the law of consecration), social justice, political Jesus on the cross, and promoting activism when you disagree with something. He wants Enoch's Zion but not does not want to abide by the terrestrial law which requires that all men and women follow the doctrine of Christ. The first point of that doctrine being repentance. No one can live in that realm who is unwilling to abide by God's commandments and live a terrestrial law which involves loving your neighbor in the way the Lord does, which does not include the acceptance of sin. His failure to accept the unchanging of the family proclamation regarding sexuality, is his failure to see that God is a creator, and to become like Him, we must also become creators and there is only one way. Unity can only come in the church when we are unified in the doctrine of Jesus Christ. No one needs to be a "theologian" to understand these things. Even a child can understand them. The scripture that comes to mind is "When they are learned, they think they are wise."
I loved many of Brother Mason’s insights. You can feel his powerful, sincere compassion. However, I wonder if his contradictory statements may be doing more harm than good for those that he has compassion for. On one hand, the family is one of the core, bedrock doctrines, but he also plants that the church might go left or right (although he says it is likely to stay non political) and by saying that past doctrines have changed (which I respectfully disagree with). By doing this, he may give false hope for that which will not change instead of accepting the will of God. On another subject, I have, like Paul, “kicked against the pricks” but have found, as incredibly hard as it has been for me, that there was definitely a peace waiting for me when I accepted God’s will.
The issue is that doctrine of equal magnitude has changed in the church’s history. It used to be doctrine that interracial marriage was sinful. (1,2)
When announcing the Priesthood ban, Brigham taught “This colored race have been subjected to severe curses... And until the curse is removed bv Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences… they cannot share in the Priesthood; they cannot bear rule; they cannot bear rule in any place until the curse is removed from them; they are a “servant of servants.”(2) The Curse of Cain, Blood Atonement, Adam-God theory, and Pre-mortal Fence Sitter doctrines, all of which were taught by the prophets, are now denounced as false doctrine.
Bruce R. McConkie said: “Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine… I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among those.”
1. First Presidency Letter,1947 July 17. Special Collections & Archives Merrill-Cazier Library Utah State University
2. The Teachings of President Brigham Young Vol. 3 1852-1854, p. 26
3. Bruce R. McConkie, Letter to Eugene England regarding Brigham Young’s Adam God doctrine, February 19, 1981, p. 6-7
I think Patrick's example of marriage as an example of doctrinal change is based on some core misunderstandings. I am assuming he's refering to our polygamous past when he makes the statement about one man married to one woman. It seems to be based on a misunderstanding of our doctrine as it was practiced and a misunderstanding of polygamy. There's a lot of flavors of polygamy. We practiced plural marriage. That's critically different than other forms of polygamy where one relationship includes several members. Particularly in a lot of modern polygamy, but also historically, such as with the Oneida's, the partners in the marriage are all partners with each other. A polygamist trio may have a husband and two wives where the wives are considered married to each other just as the husband is married to both. In the Church, we had men with multiple, seperate relationships. There was a marriage between each man and wife, with no formal relationship between the wives. The children of each wife are half-brothers and sisters to each other through thir father. The relationship of one man married to one woman was practiced then as it is now. What we are not currently authorized is the ability for a man to have multiple marriages any more. I'm pretty certain that the phrase "between one man and one woman" was developed was for that specifically. No change in doctrine.
I think often, people don't look to closely at the doctrine and then see different practices within it as different doctrines - such as the law of consecration. We no longer live in a united order style where everything is given to the Church. But tithing is still a practice of the Law of Consecration. I think a lot of folks want there to be a dynamic doctrine to allow for changes. It seems like Brother Mason is purposely looking at it myopically to support an opening for a change in marriage.
So far, whenever I've heard someone suggest the doctrine has changed, it has been practice rather than doctrine. Although I'd love to hear what examples that there might be.
Of course, I spoke too soon, and Brother Madsen went along with my thinking.
Well said, I would also add that the church as a whole never practiced polygamy, it was only authorized for a select few, probably so that the Lord could reveal section 132. As far as I can tell, the doctrine on this subject has not changed.
Classic statement, "core misunderstandings", you got that right!
The issue is that doctrine of equal magnitude has changed in the church’s history. It used to be doctrine that interracial marriage was sinful. (1,2)
When announcing the Priesthood ban, Brigham taught “This colored race have been subjected to severe curses... And until the curse is removed bv Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences… they cannot share in the Priesthood; they cannot bear rule; they cannot bear rule in any place until the curse is removed from them; they are a “servant of servants.”(2) The Curse of Cain, Blood Atonement, Adam-God theory, and Pre-mortal Fence Sitter doctrines, all of which were taught by the prophets, are now denounced as false doctrine.
Bruce R. McConkie said: “Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine… I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among those.”
1. First Presidency Letter,1947 July 17. Special Collections & Archives Merrill-Cazier Library Utah State University
2. The Teachings of President Brigham Young Vol. 3 1852-1854, p. 26
3. Bruce R. McConkie, Letter to Eugene England regarding Brigham Young’s Adam God doctrine, February 19, 1981, p. 6-7
Patrick is a smart guy….. I have known him for years. His thoughts on peace and societal violence are fine, but his twisting like a pretzel on changing the doctrine on the family are wrong. We love our SSA, LGBTQ sisters and brothers and we empathize with their lonely, celebrate, lives as they keep the law of chastity. Gender is eternal and non-negotiable and people aren’t borne that way, in my not-so-humble opinion. There is a special place in the CK for those who have this predilection but have repented and live a chaste life. Patrick is a product of the woke, leftist, Marxist academy and the social gospel. Mormon studies.(as opposed to LDS History) is interesting and a fun tangent, but is an intellectual exercise with about as much foundation as gender studies. You can twist the doctrines any way you want and everything is relative.
Hey, don’t forget us divorced/single/widowed people who are choosing to live a celibate life style in order to keep our covenants. It’s no different then a gay person making that choice.
I think it very well could be that some are borne with same-sex attraction, but I also believe there are many other ways that those desires can be engendered within an individual. I don't think this changes the eternal nature of gender or the importance for any of us to learn to align to God's command. We all have different challenges to overcome in our lives and this is one of them. That said I don't agree with Patrick either.
The issue is that doctrine of equal magnitude has changed in the church’s history. It used to be doctrine that interracial marriage was sinful. (1,2)
When announcing the Priesthood ban, Brigham taught “This colored race have been subjected to severe curses... And until the curse is removed bv Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences… they cannot share in the Priesthood; they cannot bear rule; they cannot bear rule in any place until the curse is removed from them; they are a “servant of servants.”(2) The Curse of Cain, Blood Atonement, Adam-God theory, and Pre-mortal Fence Sitter doctrines, all of which were taught by the prophets, are now denounced as false doctrine.
Bruce R. McConkie said: “Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine… I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among those.”
1. First Presidency Letter,1947 July 17. Special Collections & Archives Merrill-Cazier Library Utah State University
2. The Teachings of President Brigham Young Vol. 3 1852-1854, p. 26
3. Bruce R. McConkie, Letter to Eugene England regarding Brigham Young’s Adam God doctrine, February 19, 1981, p. 6-7
Going back 200+ years, reading through all the modern-day scriptures, journals, writings, books, and general conference talks, and seeing every spoken and written word from every Latter-day Prophet, Apostle, or GA on the topic, confirms same-sex marriage is not compatible with the Savior's Plan of Salvation. We even have a special Proclamation from the 1st Presidency and Quorum the 12. The message has been clear and consistent. God's law is that marriage is between Man and Woman.
And further, as a well-known conservative leader reminds us, No religious leader....no one - not Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Aquinas, Gandhi, not the Bible or the Koran or any other sacred text, nor even a single anti-religious secular thinker of the Enlightenment - ever advocated for gay marriage, or redefining marriage to include members of the same sex. Every moral thinker, and every religion and social movement in the history of mankind prior to the last 20 years in America and Europe was against gay marriage.
So tell me, why would anybody listen to Patrick Mason on this? Is he that enlightened through his learned knowledge that he knows better?
It's bizarre that he would talk about academics (he calls "theologians") are sketching out a theological rationales"
for doctrinal change on things like same-sex marriage or ordaining women to the priesthood unless that's what he's hoping for? These people (like Taylor Petrey and others at the Journal of Mormon Thought and even some in the Maxwell Institute) have no bearing on doctrine or leading the Church. And thank heavens for that being as they seem to increasingly be against actual prophets and apostles on certain issues. Mason is lending them influence in the Church they don't have.
Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth 2 Timothy 3:7
I love your plain speaking comment, thank you.
The issue is that doctrine of equal magnitude has changed in the church’s history. It used to be doctrine that interracial marriage was sinful. (1,2)
When announcing the Priesthood ban, Brigham taught “This colored race have been subjected to severe curses... And until the curse is removed bv Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences… they cannot share in the Priesthood; they cannot bear rule; they cannot bear rule in any place until the curse is removed from them; they are a “servant of servants.”(2) The Curse of Cain, Blood Atonement, Adam-God theory, and Pre-mortal Fence Sitter doctrines, all of which were taught by the prophets, are now denounced as false doctrine.
Bruce R. McConkie said: “Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine… I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among those.”
1. First Presidency Letter,1947 July 17. Special Collections & Archives Merrill-Cazier Library Utah State University
2. The Teachings of President Brigham Young Vol. 3 1852-1854, p. 26
3. Bruce R. McConkie, Letter to Eugene England regarding Brigham Young’s Adam God doctrine, February 19, 1981, p. 6-7
exactly, either God is a god of order, or he is not
I disagree with this brother. So should we just allow all sin? Should we allow Adulterers, thieves, murderers, drug addicts etc… in the Temple? Also, DOCTRINE does not change. Doctrine is how we implement truth, and truth is unchanging. We may add or take doctrines. But the doctrine itself does not change. I agree that we should love, but God is still God and cannot look upon sin in the least degree of allowance. I pray that God will reveal The next steps to His Prophets and Apostles.
This tells me our doctrine HAS NOT changed.
"Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none..."
The Saints are waaaaaaay more inclined to wrap their arms around gay/lesbian/trans/etc. people than they are to an adulterer much less the spouse that was cheated on.
(speaking from 1st-hand experience)
I’m sorry that was your experience.
@@karenpoch you’re kind to say that❤️
If that happened to you then that was wrong. Please remove saints are flawed and in different points of progress.
@@chablebarrett8106 you’re kind to say that, and I agree with what you’ve said.
And I have to remember that I am probably just as guilty in other ways of offending people at church.
We all need to have forgiving hearts and always be making allowances for human error.
Christ draws an equivalency between contention & doctrinal disputations. 3Ne11v28-29 People that fight against things like the Family Proclamation are contentious in their campaign to change doctrine.
I think we need to stop talking about unity among the Saints in the current context of politics.
I think we need to focus on what actually unifies the Saints, which Joseph Smith listed in the Articles of Faith.
Zion will be one mind, but that's because we will take the spirit to be our guide not the media.
@@zissler1 🎯
@@raeannaroylance5401 If you boil it down, the ideas that make up politics come down to how we as people should live, which is what the Articles of Faith really are. The ideas that some people with more left leaning views find disgusting in politics won't be so different with the ideas that the Articles of Faith present. Just looking at the first two AoF, you will find it harder to find far left minds that would ever submit to the idea of a living God and the idea of a person not being responsible for the sins of their ancestors is the exactly the message CRT supporters find incorrect. The war over politics is a war over the Gospel.
@@jasonschlierman412 among the Saints, we already agree that the AofF are true, so I think that we should highlight that commonality and let each member privately apply their faith to their politics.
@@raeannaroylance5401 Do we though?
Bro. Greg , I would like to have heard the examples of core doctrine that has “changed “ as Patrick keeps referring to ? Along with others , I feel marriage has NOT changed since Adam and Eve …Men and Women are at the core of God’s plan . Any of the core beliefs since Adam and Eve have NOT changed but rather expanded on as Revelation has come . Which of the 10 Commandments or words of The Savior were changed at their core in this last dispensation ? I would be interested in hearing ?
So it's the theologians job to reflect. Reflect on this..."neither is man without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the lord". My trouble with theologians, especially those with advanced degrees, is that too often they cant see the forest through the trees, or they remove the trees altogether.
Also, when did the Saints stop conforming their lives to have the image of Christ in their countenances?
We live in times that the Saints are trying to interpret Christ’s life to validate their personal lifestyles and they are trying to fashion His countenance in their image.
We live in time that SOME of the church members are pushing to conform Christ's church and doctrine to their own personal agendas. It is not the church as an organization, not the humble followers that are latter day saints, but some proportion of the membership that is "looking beyond the mark".
@@charinabottae I agree, and in my experience those “SOME” happen to be the “same 10 people” that are shuffled around between different presidencies on the ward and stake level.
Then they assume that because they keep getting called to leadership, they must have a greater understanding of the gospel than the truly humble followers of Christ.
@@raeannaroylance5401 Wierd. That's not been my experience. Perhaps you need to move.
@@charinabottae what good would that do?
My faith, testimony, and church attendance don’t hinge on how I am treated by the Saints.
@@raeannaroylance5401 Then why are you complaining? I understand your criticism is at the local level... still... that's not a spirit I'd advise anyone to entertain - criticism of leadership. If you have a problem, perhaps a change of venue is in order. Or change of attitude. Be a solution, not a problem. Lest it comes off as analogous to woke sjw's and their criticism of leadership not behaving as they desire them to behave.
This guy talks like the church can change doctrine based on the direction of the members of the church. If that were true, then the Church is not actually Gods true church . We would simply be the same as every other church. And frankly, if we are just like everyone else, then there is no reason to be a devoted disciple.
As Patrick Mason said in the interview our doctrines and teachings have changed over time
@@StevenBooks yes, teaching changes, implementation changes, but I don’t consider true doctrine changeable no matter what Mason says.
@@amylouwho92 Problem is defining what doctrine is. Even Dallin H Oakes says he can’t distinguish between the two
@@StevenBooks I am curious who decides which doctrines and teachings “change “ ? So is The Plan of Salvation up for a vote ? Or perhaps the divinity of Christ ? The procedures that have Nothing to do with Gods plan for his children changes …2 hour Church affects No ones salvation …But I have No example of the changing of Commandments ? I would be interested in an example of a change that contradicts commandments known since Adam and Eve ? Further revelations give just that further explanation that supports previous revelations. I have not seen or read of one that denies the 10 Commandments or Proclamation to the Family or Book of Mormon . Any examples ?
@@tomasina10 would be easier to identify a unique Mormon doctrine that hasn’t changed (on an academic level). Plan of salvation has changed as Joseph’s theology has changed.
Great discussion. Thank you. Building Zion is going to take a lot of love. You are a builder.
The church needs to stand for what's right. If someone has a problem with what's right, they can leave.
It's in the center circle.
That's how it seems to me.
No doubt it’s in the center circle. “God and His doctrine work as a whole. You can’t separate them. Can one body part say to the other body part “I have no need of thee?” You can’t say Joseph Smith is a prophet and put him in the center circle but take his teachings and put it in a separate circle. Either he is a prophet or he’s not. He and his teaching are all core.
I agree and the whole idea of circles cracks me up. Yes I am a black and white person, bitter or sweet, good and evil and I do not think truth ripples out to encircle whatever WE decide is truth.
I found this guest frustrating. We can have understanding and compassion for people addressing a myriad of challenges in their lives, but I find it so brazen to decide that one’s particular challenge should become at the forefront of discussion in an effort to change the doctrine of the family and the doctrine of Christ
Great insight
Agreed.
I’m dealing with this though in my ward right now. I have a bishopric counselor using the pulpit to tell members that the doctrine of family is wrong and that our prophets make mistake. Revelations are wrong. He wears his LBGTQ pin on his lapel and is constantly discussing this in all his talks, lessons and testimony over the last 6 months. He is brazen all the time and so this discussion is happening and people are concerned that progressives within the church are trying to change our doctrine. I’m just glad that what I have been seeing each Sunday is not in my head.
The proclamation on the family is crystal clear, nothing in it is "fuzzy". If one thinks that it is "fuzzy" it is only because they have left the Doctrine of Christ.
The issue is that doctrine of equal magnitude has changed in the church’s history. It used to be doctrine that interracial marriage was sinful. (1,2)
When announcing the Priesthood ban, Brigham taught “This colored race have been subjected to severe curses... And until the curse is removed bv Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences… they cannot share in the Priesthood; they cannot bear rule; they cannot bear rule in any place until the curse is removed from them; they are a “servant of servants.”(2) The Curse of Cain, Blood Atonement, Adam-God theory, and Pre-mortal Fence Sitter doctrines, all of which were taught by the prophets, are now denounced as false doctrine.
Bruce R. McConkie said: “Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine… I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among those.”
1. First Presidency Letter,1947 July 17. Special Collections & Archives Merrill-Cazier Library Utah State University
2. The Teachings of President Brigham Young Vol. 3 1852-1854, p. 26
3. Bruce R. McConkie, Letter to Eugene England regarding Brigham Young’s Adam God doctrine, February 19, 1981, p. 6-7
yeah, the only thing fuzzy is Professor Masons head.
Greg, the comments from people on this video give me hope!
Amen, Ed. The world through the media, tries to tell us that "most" people want change to that which has been traditionally understood as truth. That is simply not true in the church. Most of us have a particular commandment that is hard for us. Would we all like Christ to change his doctrine and truths to suit our particular struggle? To justify our sin? If we have any experience in life struggles or faith, the answer is simply NO. Understanding that God's commandments are our path to happiness, not just in this life but in eternities is a foundation of spiritual maturity and testimony.
Christ like love doesn't mean that we convolute doctrine to pacify those contemplating or engaged in sin. The prophet Nephi described the false churches of the last days that would teach “false and vain and foolish doctrines” (2 Ne. 28:9). The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its leaders have a responsibility and calling to teach and testify of eternal truths. Any conjecture from self appointed theologians that "maybe the doctrine will change or maybe the scriptures are wrong" simply is counterproductive for people who need to recognize error and change their ways. After all, I don't "break the commandments" so much as I "break myself against the commandments" and bring unhappiness into my life when I choose that which is contrary to the commandments of God.
As members we certainly have an obligation to love one another. Love is the catalyst that causes change. Love is the balm that brings healing to the soul. "But love doesn’t grow like weeds or fall like rain. Love has its price." If we ministered to one another as it is defined in the handbook we would be well on the way to creating a Zion society and having the greatest chance that we influence those who will choose Christ. Some will choose to leave the church because they don't want to change. They love their sin (of many kinds) more than they love God. We can pray for them, continue to love them and minister as we can to them. We cannot usurp their agency, help them justify sin or expect that the eternal truths of God will change to suit them. Any "theological" speculation or "pressure" that is exerted towards the leadership of the church from those in or outside the church is simply misguided at least and certainly works in favor of he who would destroy us all in extremity.
I think most members of the church understand that the doctrines of Christ are our pth, our refuge and our strength. We aren't asking God to change because we are busy trying to follow the example of Christ and the truths that have been revealed.
The church is Christ's bride. The eternal family has always been the core of all doctrine. It is God's gospel and ment to be the higher law.
Also polygamy was still marriage between a man and individual wife. It didn't change doctrine. Doctrine does not change
Amen.
There has never been a marriage between anything else than a man and a woman. In polygyny the man marries each woman separately, he has thus multiple marriages rather than one marriage with multiple women.
I have a niece and a granddaughter who have the attraction and I believe believe whole that God knows everything and He is the Judge and I trust Him totally in the mean time I have to follow His teachings in the Scriptures
The separation that is church is experiencing is prophesied. All of us suffer to some extent be it depression, loss, lbgtq, loss of faith etc. The Doctrine has not changed not will it else God would cease to be God. We need to hold on and love those who suffer and don't believe as we do.
Greg, don’t let you guest get away from creating confusion. There is NO contention or disagreement between doctrine in the Church. Practice may change, doctrine doesn’t not change.
It seems they are comparing our Church to other churches when in reality our church was re established because there was no whole truth on any other religious organization at the time. We have the whole truth, we don’t need to change our core beliefs because the world is getting wicker. I think these are times predicted in the scriptures where the wheat needs to be sifted.
The dialogue on conflict was fascinating. It's been a topic that's bounced around in my head for a long time but I hadn't been able to verbalize it. We talk about opposition in all things sometimes as if that is a temporal state, and that opposition will end when we get to the next life. It makes sense that, as stated by Patrick, that conflict is built into the system and is a feature, not a bug. Big topic and I'll have to ponder on it. Great discussion
Thank you.
The guest keeps asking “if” when theirs no reason to ask “if” it’s not changing, it goes back to beginning, we can’t change God’s laws
A great discussion that opened up many thoughts I have to consider and evaluate. Thanks to both of you for the valuable theological and social ideas i need to process.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I found this discussion to be very enlightening and helpful on the issue. Thank you both. One point of clarification I’d like to make is on “changing doctrine.” I don’t view the marriage doctrine as having changed within the church. As we see in examples like Abraham from the Bible, polygamy has never been doctrinally or fundamentally wrong although it has been something that is micro managed by God because of its ability to be misused. It is and has always been wrong without God’s specific consent and without a purpose such as building up seed and caring for the widow as with the early Saints. There was also something in the early church called the Law of Sarah where consent from a first wife was required before her husband entered into a polygamous relationship. I see this doctrine as being an example of unchanging throughout the history of the world and a testimony to the truthfulness of the restored gospel rather than a change in our recent doctrine.
I know this topic is interesting to you. It actually saddens me to hear from your guest. It shows how far down the rabbit hole we have come, using love to justify sin. It is not the doctrine but our hearts that are leaving God. Yes we can have compassion for those who struggle with gay issues or other issues. We all struggle. Shall we change the word of wisdom to accommodate drinkers, change chasity to accommodate adultery, change honesty to accommodate robbers. These issues keep us from God period. We do not need to make God and his church conform to our precepts and opinions. It should be a warning to us when we see we are not aligned with the brethren since they are God's mouthpieces.
@@stevec8861 There was no war started against Gays except what some started themselves against the church. If they do not want to live the doctrine of the church why not just go where they can be happy. No one is forcing them to stay any more than alcoholics, adulterers, robbers are forced to stay, and the list goes on. Yet I have friends who are gay and I accept that they choose this life. They do not want to live the principals of the gospel and that is ok but why fight the church over this. I have to assume that those who do fight it cannot stand it if others do not agree with their choice. Word of wisdom has not changed just how it is applied. Maybe one day it will all be applied. Priesthood has not changed at all just who was able to access it. Same as the age is changed when it can be received. The doctrine remains constant.
@@stevec8861 when I read about mild barley drinks I also thought it was referring to beer until I went to a local middle eastern restaurant for dinner and grabbed a raspberry soda from their cooler. The soda was a mild barley drink. It didn’t have any alcohol in it. Since then I have seen other mild barley drinks. They were probably more common in the US before Coke and Pepsi took over.
The spiritually immature pit love against obedience.
@@stevec8861 Wrong. Barely water was an extremely popular drink for anyone feeling under the weather in the 18th and 19th century especially.
@@stevec8861 I respect your opinion and hope you will offer our church members the same respect.
The Lord gave time for people to comply with the word of wisdom. During the mid 18OO’s drinking was so prevalent it was common for children to drink alcohol. It was a process that needed time. Complete and immediate compliance was not expected in the early days of the restoration of Christ’s church.
As regard to the blacks an the priesthood we don’t have answers to why this was withheld from them. We do know it was withheld from many during the Old Testament times. The Levites were ordained held the priestly responsibilities. When the gospel was first preached in the New Testament it was first preached to the Jews and withheld from the Gentiles for a time. We don’t have answers for those things either. We do love and are blessed by the wonderful associations we have with our black brothers and sisters.
As far as sexual sin goes. Christ never condoned it. God cares very much how His children enter this world and very much how they leave it. He gave commandments meant to address those issues. Keeping His laws are really a matter of trusting in God.
We can respect differing beliefs and live together in peace. You are free to choose the way you want to live and the beliefs you have. We are also free to choose our actions and beliefs. Isn’t it wonderful we all have a choice! Peace to you and yours.
Thank you for having this discussion. It helped me do some much needed self evaluation.
Glad it was helpful!
“Our doctrine-not just belief, but doctrine-that sexual relations are only appropriate and lawful in the Lord’s eyes between man and woman legally and lawfully married is unchanged and will never change.” -Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve
In this last General Conference; Saturday evening session. President Oaks says “ The gospel of Jesus Christ does not change. Gospel doctrine does not change. Our personal covenants do not change. “
I would like to see more unity but let's stay faithful to Christ and God's values.
Yeah, it’s not like our definition of marriage has changed drastically over the years…
The issue is that doctrine of equal magnitude has changed in the church’s history. It used to be doctrine that interracial marriage was sinful. (1,2)
When announcing the Priesthood ban, Brigham taught “This colored race have been subjected to severe curses... And until the curse is removed bv Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences… they cannot share in the Priesthood; they cannot bear rule; they cannot bear rule in any place until the curse is removed from them; they are a “servant of servants.”(2) The Curse of Cain, Blood Atonement, Adam-God theory, and Pre-mortal Fence Sitter doctrines, all of which were taught by the prophets, are now denounced as false doctrine.
Bruce R. McConkie said: “Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine… I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among those.”
1. First Presidency Letter,1947 July 17. Special Collections & Archives Merrill-Cazier Library Utah State University
2. The Teachings of President Brigham Young Vol. 3 1852-1854, p. 26
3. Bruce R. McConkie, Letter to Eugene England regarding Brigham Young’s Adam God doctrine, February 19, 1981, p. 6-7
Great conversation. You guys both have some great insights. I also LOVE discussion around “if we have the complete family doctrine, we still have not perfected how to minister to these people”. I think that hits the nail completely on the head. I feel that the spirit is whispering to me that that is the truth. I have my money on the proclamation of the family being permanent Doctrine. I believe most members do. And if that’s the case, it is the outreach, the empathy and the love that we can show to the affected people that will be the difference maker.
And if that’s the case, i believe there has been this misunderstanding percolating through academia that the brethren didn’t really mean what they said and still don’t. Or that the brethren are misinformed. I do not believe that is the case. And i believe this misunderstanding has been generated through a sincere but misguided sense of needing “justice” and “equality” in our current state. God never insinuates that we will or should experience either one of these completely in mortality, We should try any rational and good things we can to approach these ideals, but they are NOT the highest priority in this life. I think academia’s ultimate obsession with these two concepts is their downfall.
I agree. The issue that needs to be dealt with is how to minister to those who are still in the process of learning God's truths. (which we all are) How do we love people where they are at without judging them unrighteously or compromising the truth? That is a tremendous challenge, but one that I feel God is asking his disciples to take on. This particular issue just happens to bring that challenge into sharp focus.
The only thing that will prevent the churches efforts to hold things together, will be the individual members who make that job increasingly more difficult, to the point where the whole thing tumbles down, and we once again enter an age of apostasy. This should cause us all to stop, pause, and reflect if we're doing this, which includes myself.
We have the Lord's promise that, unlike previous dispensations, the Church will not fall into apostasy in this final one. The prophet Joseph Smith said, "I will give you a key that will never rust. If you will if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."
@@jaredshipp9207 YES ! It will not be taken from the Earth no matter how many fall away . Those who let “God prevail “ will remain .
I don't see an official statement that the Church conceeds that gays are born that way. My take is that it is a separation between feelings and behavior. I have read nothing that predicts where feelings such as these come from - that is skipped because when it comes to behavior, there is no exemptions for where such feelings were acquired, something that can't be known. If you could produce an actual quote from the Brethren that says gays are born that way, I might be willing to hear what you say.
Exactly right!
It amazes me how this guy can say things that are blatantly wrong and then just move on to his next thought leaving many listeners with false information. This man has failed to speak PURE TRUTH as President Nelson said during GC.
SHOCKING!
He sure didn’t talk that way on the FM podcast.
You mentioned he’s the Leonard J Arrington chair of something at USU.... I recently became aware of who Arrington is/was via a book from the Joseph Smith foundation (Faith crisis 2: behind closed doors) I recommend reading it and I think it would make for a great show talking about who he was. A big reason as to how so much is this progressive influence is inside the Church and the revisionist history that’s been plaguing us and destroying testimonies.
The Proclamation of the Family is central circle doctrine in our Faith and for anyone to make that “hazy” to me just doesn’t understand the plan of salvation or exaltation.
I *strongly* recommend against reading it, for what it's worth.
@@nathanphair2054 can I ask why? Are you an Arrington fan?
@@mrmod123 I'm a fan of reliable scholarship, and those books are not that.
The concept of plural marriage was a part of the 'restitution of all things'. In order to abide the governmental law, the practice was abandoned but it remains an eternal concept. That is not a change in doctrine, the eternal plural marriage doctrine remains intact. If we compromise on sexual perversions we abandon the Old Testament teachings and practices. There is no shame in drawing a line and holding you ground.
This was an awesome discussion🤟🏽Thank You🤙🏽🤙🏽🤙🏽🙏🏼
This subject reminds me of the story of the Tower of Bable. Are we trying to tell God what we want to believe. Or are we willing to let God lead us and teach us his will and doctrine.
I understand the charge the church has to unite as many of God's children as possible, and I understand parables such as The Good Shepard. However, it's not realistic that the church will even unite EVERYONE. Even Christ understood this. You look at parables like the ten virgins and the talents, there will be separations of people. So, if a church that stands as Christ's church is looking to unite as many people as possible, playing patty-cake with the groups that want to rip Western Civilization to shreds probably isn't the best game plan.
Greg - I see here some of the same kinds of distractions that are popular today. I think you have mentioned some of this in your other podcasts on critical race theory and liberation theology. As we look at Enoch and Abraham and Moses, and others in the scriptures, and talk about how they went out to save other marginalized groups, we need to understand how they applied the Doctrine of Christ in their lives FIRST. I believe these men had already done the hard work of repenting and moving down the covenant path and already had the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, their calling and elections made sure, and they already had the second comforter. These men were in a position to go out and seek to gather others and create a city of Zion or whatever. Most members of the church are not ready for this (even though they think they are), and our own personal repentance and seeking for more must be the FIRST step for us, and not get distracted by going out and helping everyone else. We can still help others, but our main focus should be moving down the covenant path every day with personal prayer, personal scripture study, and personal revelation - none of this requires us to go out and help other groups; It comes as a natural desire as we progress through the Doctrine of Christ. I also like the words from Mormon that talk of how the Lamanites considered themselves victims, and taught it to their children for generations - the same is here among us today (Mosiah 10:11-17) - love your stuff!
Has the doctrine really changed or has the policy concerning the doctrine on the family just be adjusted? The doctrine is still the doctrine!! It may not be practiced right now but it has not ceased to exist.
The issue is that doctrine of equal magnitude has changed in the church’s history. It used to be doctrine that interracial marriage was sinful. (1,2)
When announcing the Priesthood ban, Brigham taught “This colored race have been subjected to severe curses... And until the curse is removed bv Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences… they cannot share in the Priesthood; they cannot bear rule; they cannot bear rule in any place until the curse is removed from them; they are a “servant of servants.”(2) The Curse of Cain, Blood Atonement, Adam-God theory, and Pre-mortal Fence Sitter doctrines, all of which were taught by the prophets, are now denounced as false doctrine.
Bruce R. McConkie said: “Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine… I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among those.”
1. First Presidency Letter,1947 July 17. Special Collections & Archives Merrill-Cazier Library Utah State University
2. The Teachings of President Brigham Young Vol. 3 1852-1854, p. 26
3. Bruce R. McConkie, Letter to Eugene England regarding Brigham Young’s Adam God doctrine, February 19, 1981, p. 6-7
Excellent discussion! Thank you.
Polygamy has historical precedence and so does priesthood for woman. Same-sex marriage has no historical precedence and undermines family propagation. I don’t see the doctrine of the family as stated in the proclamation ever changing other than possibly reinstate polygamy.
I have a concern with the statement "Doctrine changes" maybe a better way to explain this is using the words 'added upon' this would support the scriptures that states 'line upon line and precept upon precept'. I believe It is our job to seek God, his will, and his knowledge and then seek to know how we can apply those doctrines or truth in our current circumstances. This kind of sounded to me that we are trying to fit God into these progressive wordly trends instead of reconciling the trends of the world to God's doctrines.
Why is it today, that we can’t call sin, sin?? I’m just very confused!! Don’t we love these brothers and sisters unconditionally but still not condone the sin?? We don’t even call it a sin any longer! Instead of preaching repentance, we’re trying to figure out how to accommodate? I’m confused? And believe me, I have enough myself that I have to repent for daily, so I’m not saying I’m perfect by any means, but can we call a sin, a sin??
This man is very interesting because he talks doctrine and scripture with his own twist or perspective that demonstrates similar understanding and actual knowledge but leaves me personally scratching my head and wondering if he is reading the same Book of Mormon I read, or the same Bible. That isn't so surprising, in general, except that he is LDS and I assume understands that Jesus Christ's utmost or highest quality and example is his complete and utter submission to God the Father, which eclipses any doctrine or teaching and was THE phenomenon that made it possible for Christ to carry out the atonement. Brother Patrick keeps referring to the centrality of Christ but seems "mushy" or avoidant of this huge, huge central or core reality. Submission to God's will in all things is our greatest challenge in life and is what separates us most from Christ by comparison, in my opinion. Therefore I find Brother Mason's discussion of Christ to be kind of in the target area but distinct from my belief about Christ and His role in our lives and in being used as a way to suggest changes that need or should come to the Church.
I love the idea put forth bt Greg that our Church needs to learn a lot about how to minister to certain segments of the membership. Society like technology is changing so rapidly that I can hardly blame the Church's ability to catch up or keep up. I don't know how that bodes for the damage and tragedies occurring daily in lost souls and lost testimonies....I heard President Nelson make a curiously fascinating remark, almost an aside in one of his talks to BYU, that the Terrestrial Kingdom was also a wonderful place, should some decide the price of the Celestial too high to pay. Surprising remark I have not really heard before in that context (gay issue).
Patrick says the prophet and apostles are not theologians, he’s right. Neither was Moses or Joseph Smith same applies to the twelve apostles the Savior himself handpicked …and the list goes on and on.
Maybe the problem is with the theologians. Jesus experienced it from the Pharisees and the Sadducees - seems we have the same problem with theologians today.
Spot on
Polygamy in the early church was not a marriage with several wives but separate multiple marriage's. So that is my understanding.
And SEALINGs mainly and when it was commanded of the lord it’s ok to have kids with multiple wives
Lorax: Which way does a tree fall? A tree falls the way it leans..be careful which way you lean.
No good can come from wishing that God would indemnify sin. The church is not going to authorize the practice of gay marriage . Anyone who lingers under this false hope of is going to waste a lot of time waiting to be disappointed. Marriage between a man and a woman is truth as it is , as it was, and as it will be to come.
The idea that because you were born with certain tendencies for temptations the laws of God and natural law doesn’t apply to you is a cunningly crafted lie. All sin has some form of a biological component to it. So should we just go with it because we were born that way? Heterosexual attracted people are “born that way” too. The great commonality of man is that we all face temptations that try our faith. I salute same sex attracted people who understand this and refuse the satanic cop out the same way everyone else does who denies themselves of sin. The Apostle Paul said..“There is no sin that has taken you but that is common to man, but God is faithful who will not allow you to be tempted beyond that which you can bear”
Marriage between a man and a woman is an eternal truth.
I had learn’d to call thee father
Through thy spirit from on high;
But until the key of knowledge9
Was restor’d, I knew not why.
In the heav’ns are parents single?
No, the thought makes reason stare;
Truth is reason-truth eternal
Tells me I’ve a mother there.
I disagree that creation creates conflict. Free agency, or the more recent phrase moral agency, creates conflict.
Everyone has specific issues that are sufficient to teach, give experience to, and help exhalt . Let's not exhalt the struggles of those with same sex attraction as having a greater cross to bear.
Isaiah 24: They have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.... In the epic General conference of October 1973 Boyd K Packer stated: "it is not the privilege of those so called as leaders to slide the Church about as though it were on casters, hoping to put it into the path that men or youth will be safe within it.
Such a wonderful quote!
It has not changed related polygamy, I know that shakes some people up, but it hasn’t changed.
It's important to remember that God would not change his standards when Cain presented his offering of sacrifice. Even though it would deeply offend Cain.
When one is offended it is a very perilous state.
In our increasingly divisive and corrupted society, is impossible to stand for our values and not be political.
I love your podcasts so I hope this doesn’t come off wrong. But it seems as if there’s really only one issue that’s really addressed it or talked about, lgbt matters. I want to be clear, I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing. We should have love for everyone. However there are many other issues that members are facing, and yet it seems like the church and church culture only focuses on this issue. For example It was mentions in the podcasts that it (lgbt issues) are the hardest burdens to bare. I don’t think that’s fair, every individual has burdens and challenges in life. Yes, some people have easier lives than other, no doubt. But having same gender attraction doesn’t mean your burdens are worse, they are just different. Rating burdens on a scale like that is dangerous because it leaves so many people alone in their struggles. Some lgbt members do have bigger struggles, but some do not. I just really wish the church and members in the church would also focus on other issues with the same importance, because there are many. Many that are leading people from the church, just like that issue.
So I contacted Patrick Mason because he was quoted in the Washington Post Magazine article. Yes, it was about lgbtq issues. But I think we covered several topics here. To me, Elder Holland's talk is a fastened hinge moment and I admit that I have wanted to exhaust that to some degree. Thanks for watching!
Well said and well put and well meaning.
The Doctrine of the Family hasn't changed. Doctrine doesn't change. That "rock" won't be moving. Is the Proclamation on the Family doctrine? How do you get any more clear doctrine than a "proclamation" signed by the 15 living prophets, seers, and revelators. Where in any scripture do you get more 'framing/underpinning' than that.
We cannot concern ourselves with collective salvation until we address the personal relationship we have with our parents.
Until we turn our hearts in love, forgiveness, and compassion to our actual parents, we are going to be narcissistic, passive aggressive, arrogantly humble/humbly arrogant, vain self-preservationists.
What is that quote about not being able to rule a city if you can’t rule your tongue or your household.
I don't really see the Church moving right or left. I'm really hoping that the Church only wants truth and forget politics.
Some great comments here. This interview could've been shorted by about an hour with this: Harold C. Brown (set apart by the First Presidency) in 2000, "the big issue to come in the future, gender issues and gay marriage. Every other religious organization will eventually accept gay marriage as a norm. The Church will not. We will stand alone."
(Mount Logan Stake Conference;June 2000) Five years after the Family Proclamation was given. Purely prophetic..
No doubt SSA is a challenge. But the doctrine will not change on marriage. To love all of our brothers and sisters. This is surely obvious. But contrary to the John Dehlins of the world... This won't be changing.
We talk about how hard a road for SSA adults to remain celibate. What about our single adult straight members who honor chastity? There is always a slant.
Thanks for the insights!
My pleasure!
Does Doctrine change? Or do Policies change? The doctrine of marriage has not changed. Marriage is between "a man and a woman" today "in today's culture and civic laws," but the doctrine of marriage and plural marriage has not changed. Marriage between one man and one woman is all that is necessary for "eternal lives" but biologically and biblically, plural marriage is doctrinal historically and biological. The biggest question in today's culture is this. "Does revelation come from the bottom up?" Those who adhere to this will fall away no matter how much they are loved and included.
I'm curious on how he would feel about defensive measures vs offensive measures...I just think that sometimes war/conflict can be justified based on the gospel principle of free choice. That's where a prophet comes in to help us know when the defense is necessary and when it is not.
Indeed. Would one yield a sword, or bat! to protect one's family?
@@CwicShow I would but I’m southern like those pesky Missourians lol
He discusses this in the book he recently coauthored and published.
I think it is important to define proper "Conflict" because there is conflict in our culture that is fraught with Anger. That type is more like war.
I like this conversation (and there's plenty to debate and disagree with the guest about), but I think it's entirely incorrect to believe religion and politics are separate and naturally should never mix in churches and worship. We currently live in Satan's domain and we look forward to God one day doing away with Satan's false "kingdom" and establishing God's real Kingdom on Earth. And a kingdom is a form of government, therefore religion is absolutely and quite political. The scriptures state as much that it's political, that He is our King and Ruler. God's Kingdom is the pure form of government, a political structure that benefits all. So this conversation seems to be crippled from the start in that regard.
I’ve found it difficult to trust Patrick after the way he criticized BYU scholarship, especially as it became clear he was only doing it from the soft sciences perspective or philosophy side of it. Real scholars aren’t worried about prejudicing their research because of their religion, or deliberately coming to a topic from a spiritual conclusion, yet Patrick patronized the strawmen he created on the Faith Matters appearance with Tim Christofferson. If a scholar is so weak minded and dishonest that they’re going to use their religion to direct conclusions then why bother with the research, just skip to the work and write a conclusion? It’s that kind of shallow thinking that reveals Patrick as either a dishonest actor or a terrible source for anyone dealing with faith issues.
Patrick Mason is the man. Loved this respectful dialogue between two great Latter-day Saints with different opinions but a shared love of the Gospel.
I absolutely loved this! So many great points. Thank you, both.
Glad you enjoyed it!
The Concentric Circle Doctrine Map: Why It’s Problematic
I take issue with the concentric circle method of mapping “core doctrines” vs what people call “less important” doctrine.
Doctrines of the Gospel are not silos. These doctrines intertwine and interconnect with each other to the point that if you try to compartmentalize them or isolate them, you will likely end up misunderstanding the doctrines, their context and how they relate with other doctrine. At worst you’ll end up deceiving yourself.
The point of all of doctrine of Christ is to bring about immortality and eternal life of God’s children. Since abiding by the laws and doctrines of the gospel is formative in this process, these doctrine and laws cannot be sectioned off an isolated from each other without negating and nullifying the eternal process whereby God became God. “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.”
The most fundamental doctrine I can think of is our understanding of God, The Father, who He is, how He became God, what His work is, His relationship with Christ and the Holy Ghost, and what our relationship with Him is. It’s my assertion that one cannot extract and separate the Doctrine of the Family out of our understanding of God, The Father, who He is, and what His work is. If you try, you put a huge hole in your understanding of God.
Here is a list of truths related to both the Doctrine of the Family and our understanding of God the Father:
God the Father is an exalted man. God The Father became who He is through abiding by among other doctrines, the Doctrine of the Family, which means God has a family, including a wife, our Heavenly Mother to whom He is sealed by the Holy Priesthood. We are Their spirit children. This is the ultimate family relationship in the Doctrine of the Family. Our earthly family is and was always intended to be a “type” of this relationship.
The only way God is increasing is through increased glory, which happens as His children progress to immortality and exaltation. This increase in posterity is a crowning feature of exaltation. It’s one of the defining characteristics of Eternal Life and is a continuation of the commandment God the Father gave to Adam and Eve and all of us by extension to multiply and replenish the Earth. This commandment isn’t only for mortality, it continues into eternity. This is all part of the Doctrine of the Family.
The Doctrine of the Family isn’t just the ideal model for raising children in the Gospel, it establishes the Order of Heaven. The Heavens are ruled by Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses. This is the Patriarchal Order of the Priesthood and is entirely based on the Doctrine of the Family.
The Abrahamic Covenant is entirely based on the Doctrine of the Family “through thy seed shall all the kindreds (families) of the earth be blessed.” This is accomplished partly by turning the hearts of Fathers to their Children and the hearts of Children to their Fathers through the sealing ordinances of the temple. Again, this is all entirely based on the Doctrine of the Family.
Finally, to change the Doctrine of the Family to include gay marriage would be to tell countless children “No, you don’t need a mother.” and “No, you don’t need a father.” What a thing to tell a child. The God I know would never allow it, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace”.
On Theologians and Prophets
This is the first time I have ever heard of the need for theologians to do the work of making certain revelations possible. The scriptures are replete with warnings about intellectualism and the dangers of relying on the flesh and the philosophies of men. I am very skeptical about any need we have for theologians to be pushing the prophets or the church in any direction whatsoever.
With the gift of modern prophets and personal revelation, I’m not sure a class of theologians is necessary. I appreciate explanations and encouraging thoughts, and gospel teaching, but not as a driver which “makes new revelation possible”. Prayer and The Holy Ghost are sufficient. It’s all the Nephites needed to get ready for what Christ taught them when he visited them. There are no new problems that drive the need for new today.
Doctrine vs Practice vs Policy
I am pretty sure Bro. Mason understands the difference between Doctrine, Practice, and Policy as they relate to Church matters. Anyone with any kind of Priesthood Leadership training has been taught this. I’m not sure why he seemed to ignore this.
I’ll not speculate as to why, but I have already explained why I don’t think there’s a change to the Doctrine of the Family or the Law of Chastity to make way for the sanctioning of gay relationships and marriage and access to temple sealings etc. For all the reasons I state above, I am sure this is impossible.
I believe the path is clear. Patrick says the path isn't clear - it is clear but difficult.
Why is a restriction on sexual activity outside the bounds set by the Lord more of a burden for homosexual vs heterosexual attraction? Sexual attraction is sexual attraction. You are either willing to express it within the bounds set by the Lord or you are not. And if not, the consequences are the same regardless of sexual orientation.
If you say, it’s harder for homosexuals because their inclinations and proclivities do not align with male/female reproductive biology. I accept that proposition. But I do not see how it differs beyond this. Sexual desires and drives are to be bridled, regardless of who/what those drives are pointed at.
Finally, the claims of “unique” victim hood because of an individual’s “natural” sexual inclination is made mute in the doctrine of the requirement to be born again. The doctrine is that ALL people must be born again, literally becoming new creatures, if they wish to attain the inheritance foreordained to them before the foundation of the world. The person we were born as naturally, must be laid down unto death, with all its carnal and devilish inclinations and proclivities, to be reborn as a creature of the Spirit, governed and sanctified over time by the Spirit of God. Humility, long suffering, and faith make this possible, even for those who feel life isn’t fair because of whatever burden they carry.
Thank you for this clarifying and direct statement of truth!
Spot on
This is the statement I was hoping to read. Agreed. I was just to afraid someone would come after me.
The part of this discussion that makes no sense to me is the part that seems to suggest that "we" can do whatever we want with the Lord's church. No, we can't. As soon as that happens it is no longer his church. The question we should ask very humbly is "what does Christ want us to do with it?"