Changes in Mormon doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tmaque
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tmaque

Guest
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.

A church that changes it’s doctrine on matters of faith and morals cannot be the church of an unchanging God. I predict that it won’t be long (less than 50 years) until you’ll see gay marriages in the temple and women holding the priesthood. That IS the pattern…is it not?
 
Those are some good points. However, it must be noted that the Catholic Church has experienced this kind of change as well. Some of our Bibles use inclusive language. Women do not wear veils anymore. And, of course, change from Tridentine to Novus Ordo.

This is not to say, though, that I am not an orthodox Catholic.
 
Changing the mass from Latin to the vernacular is not a matter of faith and morals, neither is women wearing veils. This stands in stark contrast to the changes I mentioned in LDS doctrine. All of which were at one time or another declared to be unalterably God’s word by one or another of the Mormon prophets.
 
I would say that the temple ceremony changes were a big one.

Many of my older LDS friends were really upset by that. Here they had been going to the temple for years believing this to be God’s ancient cerimony restored in the fullness of time only to find out that many of the parts they felt were the most serrious were really “optional”.

One of the little ones which for some reason I find humorous is that the temple ceremony used to include…well, a play… this has been replaced with a movie. It is sort of akin to going to confirmation and not having a Bishop there, instead you go and watch a movie… very odd to me. It was odd to me when I went through the temple and it just seems more bizarre as time passes. Of course the whole thing freaked me out to begin with, but now that time has passed some of it seems more funny then surreal.
-D
 
Something that I think is really odd in Mormonism was Brigham Young’s Adam-God doctrine. What’s with that? :confused:
 
The “prophet” Brigham Young (the most highly revered Mormon prophet after Joseph Smith) clearly believed and taught that Michael the Arcangel and Adam are the same person and are our God. Of course, most modern Mormons are not aware of this. Here are some examples:

"How much unbelief exists in the minds of Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me - namely that Adam is our father and God …Then he said, ‘I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful. I received my crown and exaltation…I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle…’ (Brigham Young, Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873, page 308; Deseret Evening News, June 14, 1873)

Who was the Savior begotten by?..Who did beget him? His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer of the body, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam; Michael; the Ancient of Days. (President Brigham Young, Feb. 19, 1854, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives; ; Brigham Young Addresses, 1850-1854, Vol. 2, by Elden J. Watson, sheet 179 (in chronological order), Historical Dept. Church, Ms d 1234, Box 48 Fd. 11; also in Adam Is God???, pp. 9-10; Adam-God Maze, p.101)

Some years ago I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God…It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven… (President Brigham Young, in the Tabernacle, General Conference, October 8, 1861, 10:30 a.m.; Brigham Young Addresses, 1860-1864, Vol. 4, by Elden J. Watson, sheet 134 (in chronological order), Historical Dept. Church, Ms d 1234, Box 49 fd 8)

The following is that part of the Lecture at the Veil which was delivered by President Young at his home in St. George, Utah, on the evening of February 7th, 1877:…
  1. Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth;
  2. He had lived on an earth similiar [sic] to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof,
  3. And had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness,
19.And had begotten all the spirits that was to come to this earth. (Unpublished Revelations of the Prophets and Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, complied by Fred C. Collier, Vol 1, pp. 116-117, Collier’s Publishing Co. P.O. Box 1866, Salt Lake City, UT 84110, 2nd edition 1981)
 
40.png
darcee:
It was odd to me when I went through the temple and it just seems more bizarre as time passes. Of course the whole thing freaked me out to begin with, but now that time has passed some of it seems more funny then surreal.
-D
Click to expand...
I agree. When I went through the temple to get my endowments prior to my mission I fully expected to have this intense spiritual experience. Based on what everyone told me I expected it to be the most wonderful thing one could imagine…something truly inspiring. I remember clearly my thoughts that day as I left the temple…“that was just plain weird”. I quickly put that thought out of my mind because it conflicted with my beliefs at the time. I felt that there must be something lacking in me and my understanding because my reaction to the temple ceremonies was more repulsive than uplifting and spiritual. It was several years later that I realized that my reaction was entirely normal, moral and right. There was nothing wrong with me, on the contrary, my reaction was entirely correct.
 
Book of Mormon: Jacob 2:27: “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;”

**God changes his mind: **Doctrine & Covenants 132
After justification on biblical grounds of the plural wives of Abraham and David “they were given by [God],” God gave a special commandment to Emma (Joseph Smith’s wife) to “receive all those [wives] that have been given unto my servant Joseph” and to “cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else.” The penalty for her disobedience was death: “But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord they god, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law. But if she will abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.”

Then followed the new law of polygamy: **“If any man espouse a virgin and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then he is justified; he cannot commit adultery . . . . and if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him. . .” **

Both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants are the work of Joseph Smith Jun.

JMJ Jay
 
Several of the women Joseph Smith Jun. “married” were not virgins as required by the Mormom law of pologyny (one husband, two or more wives) but were the wives of men who were still living, thus resulting in polyandry (one wife, two or more husbands):

mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/menwives.htm

See also No Man Knows My History, The Life of Joseph Smith, by Fawn M. Brodie, Second Edition, Alfred A. Knopf, 1979, for a list of Smith’s documented wives.
 
40.png
Tmaque:
I agree. I felt that there must be something lacking in me and my understanding because my reaction to the temple ceremonies was more repulsive than uplifting and spiritual. It was several years later that I realized that my reaction was entirely normal, moral and right. There was nothing wrong with me, on the contrary, my reaction was entirely correct.
Click to expand...
Yes, that explains how I felt so well. I was expecting it to be this special experience. My branch president and his wife accompanied me, they were wonderful. But then it was sort of like I was a cog in the big temple machine.
I think the name thing exemplifies it the most of me. I was told that this was my special new name, and when I got it (Miriam) I thought "Wow! finally this means something. I have always loved Mary Magdalen and so to be a “Mary” was something. I sing and am musical and Miriam was a psalmtrist. I have a tendency to be a little too opinionated (as was Miriam) I am very dedicated to my family and would risk a everything for them (like Miriam following Moses’s basket). But then I was told if I ever forgot my new name all I had to do was ask a Temple President and tell him the date and temple I received my endowment at. I asked “well how will you know since no one has taken a record of it.” Turns out EVERY woman who went through that temple that day got the SAME NAME! Yeah, this is your special new name, and if you went yesterday it would have been Rachel and if you went tomorrow it would have been Anne.
-D
 
BTW Tom, you have failed to indicate how brand new teachings can be a “restoration” of anything.

Anxiously awaiting your reply.
 
God changes his mind about plural marriage once again:

Excerpt from the “Woodruff Manifesto” of 1890: "Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise. [Here Woodruff denies that the LDS church has continued to teach polygamy during a specified period of time.]

**. . . And I now publicly decare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the Land. **

Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

President Lorenzo Snow: " ‘I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 14th, 1890, and that as a Church in general Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.’ The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous. Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890."

As a result of this action, Utah was admitted to the Union of the United States of America on January 4, 1896.

JMJ Jay
 
Tmaque wrote:

A church that changes it’s doctrine on matters of faith and morals cannot be the church of an unchanging God. I predict that it won’t be long (less than 50 years) until you’ll see gay marriages in the temple and women holding the priesthood. That IS the pattern…is it not?

Tmaque: I predict this church (and others like it) won’t be around another 50 years, seriously. :ehh:

Jorge.
 
40.png
Delgadoajj:
Tmaque wrote:

A church that changes it’s doctrine on matters of faith and morals cannot be the church of an unchanging God. I predict that it won’t be long (less than 50 years) until you’ll see gay marriages in the temple and women holding the priesthood. That IS the pattern…is it not?

Tmaque: I predict this church (and others like it) won’t be around another 50 years, seriously. :ehh:

Jorge.
Click to expand...
The LDS church is growing at a enormous rate. Their doctrinal changes does not seem to matter to the members. What doesn’t fit the doctrine is either locked away (such as the Journal of Discourses) or changed (the Book of Mormon’s many changes).

It’s more than just a church. For them, it’s a way of life.
 
why hasn’t “rod of iron” or charity TOm written any crazy talk yet??
 
40.png
Tmaque:
The “prophet” Brigham Young (the most highly revered Mormon prophet after Joseph Smith) clearly believed and taught that Michael the Arcangel and Adam are the same person and are our God. Of course, most modern Mormons are not aware of this.
Click to expand...
If this is true, then it would seem that Mormons are not Christians at all. Objections?
 
Catholic_Girl 9:
why hasn’t “rod of iron” or charity TOm written any crazy talk yet??
Click to expand...
Catholic Girl 9,

Your words are condescending. In a thread particularly lacking response from you and others you said, “please stop debating with the mormons. obviously they’re not interested in hearing the truth.” It is ironic that on this thread few of the evidences of apostasy that I have already posted have actually been addressed by you or others. And even with your comment you continue to post off topic reasons to reject the CoJCoLDS. It seems to me that you might respond to issues or refrain from suggesting it is LDS who do not address the truth. Here is the thread in case you forgot.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4383&page=1&pp=100

Your comments as quoted above is #143 on the second page, but there are plenty of unaddressed evidences for the Apostasy before this post, and some after.

Charity, TOm
 
40.png
boppysbud:
BTW Tom, you have failed to indicate how brand new teachings can be a “restoration” of anything.

Anxiously awaiting your reply.
Click to expand...
If you are concerned, I have started responding with #5.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4383&page=1&pp=100

Concerning this thread, I do not think I will respond too much. I will leave you with two things.
  • If possible revealed doctrine (teaching) was not incorporated into the standard works, it may or may not be true, but it is not binding LDS doctrine. The statements of LDS leaders in the past are not binding doctrine. The statements of LDS leaders in the present are to be embraced as part of sustaining the leaders of the church. All churches must be allowed to define what their doctrines are.
  • LDS believe that God reveals to the church directions. This supernatural revelation does not need to conform to tradition as is the case with the limited papal authority. God does not change his mind, but once the gospel was for the Jews, then it was for Jews and Gentiles. Once the gospel of God involved sacrifice of animals, then it did not. Once God promised to make the Jews a kingdom of priests, but then he restricted the priesthood to the Levitical order.
Just some thoughts.

Charity, TOm
 
Good to have you back charity TOm. It is nice to hear your logic behind the wackyness that is mormonism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top