Changes in Mormon doctrine

[Tmaque]

“The first Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, was held in 325 on the occasion of the heresy of Arius (Arianism). As early as 320 or 321 St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, convoked a council at Alexandria at which more than one hundred bishops from Egypt and Libya anathematized Arius.” As you can see, the only real issue being discussed at the council of Nicea was Arianism. Surely your Mormon friend doesn’t agree with Arius, does she? The doctrine of Ariansim rejects that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech. Mormons believe Jesus to be a God in his own right so Arianism is definitely unlike Mormon doctrine.
During the period it made sense to bring all Bishops to one location to discuss the finer points of theology. They weren’t “debating” major points of theology. There were making sure that they were all teaching EXACTLY the same thing. Much like making sure the consumption of Coca Cola excluded a person from the Temple in South Korea AND in the United States. (It does not) Maybe the LDS Church should hold a mission presidents council and start teaching the same thing everywhere.

 

[FightingFat]

That’s great! Thanks!

I’m so glad I found this forum, you really feel like your with a community of Catholics- and immeadiately friends!!

A large part of our discussion has centered on the Book of Mormon (BoM) and I have personal questions I would like to discuss.

I have seen all the basic problems with geography, words used like silk and bees and the fauna spoken of and metalurgy and all that stuff. Personally, my first thoughts were that if God wanted to reveal something new to us, surely it would be more like the NT and not going back over old stuff. We use the OT because of the way it relates to the NT. There are lots of non-canonical books to read as there are lots of Gnostic texts, they don’t affect the canon or reveal anything we need to know really. I can’t see that a new OT book would constitute revelation from God? It cannot relate to the new covenant.

This said I still think it was very clever of JS to stick his head in his hat and dictate this massive book!
There’s a true KJ style to the writing, many Mormon’s talk of perfect chiasmus in the text.
Anyone know any other arguements why it is a fraud? Anyone got any opinions on how and why JS wrote it? Wasn’t a lot of it copied from another book?

 

[Tmaque]

I agree with you that JS was a talented man. But, the fact that he seemed to do something amazing when he wrote the Book Of Mormon doesn’t mean it was inspired or true. George Handel wrote his famous piece “The Messiah” in just 23 days. Keep in mind this was a 280 page manuscript and it’s considered a masterpiece. So, it is absolutely possible that a creative, talented and driven man could write the BOM in a few years.

My point is I don’t think you can judge the book’s divine claim by looking at how fast it got here. You must judge it by it’s ability to stand up to real history, current archeology, and common sense. The BOM fails on all counts. It failed from the beginning and continues to fail as time goes on. There was an earlier thread that really explored the BOM. I’m sure it’s still there if you’re interested.

 

[darcee]

A great deal of it is copied from the KJV of the Bible.

Being written in a short amount of time doesn’t mean it wasn’t created in a longer period of time. There are quotes from Joseph Smith’s own mother about how he would entertain the family with stories about the native people’s of the New World. He probably had the whole story worked out well before the time when he began dictating it.

-D

 

[Answersplease]

Why is it that all the changes to Mormon doctrine since Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor correspond to social pressures or styles of the times? The answer is either
A: God wants Mormons to become more popular and accepted by the mainstream(an idea that is in total opposition to the stories and history of the Bible). Or,
B: Mormon doctrine is man-made and thereby influenced by society at large.

A few cases in point:
*Polygamy-rejected after extreme pressure from the federal govt.
*Changes in temple garments-came after changes in clothing styles that no longer covered the forearms and calves.
*Word of wisdom - instead of being a suggestion as stated in the Doctrine & Covenants, became a commandment during the great temperance movement of the late 19th century
*Blacks given the priesthood - came about after extreme pressure from society at large.
*Changes in the Book of Mormon(God’s word?) to alter racist comments to match current social norms
*Changes to the temple ceremonies themselves-Changed due to violent nature and to distance Mormon from Masonic rituals
*Acceptance of contraception and some forms of abortion-due to the current social norms.

I would say “B” is the correct answer.