L
Lochias
Guest
Heh. Commas, spelling, doctrinal changes, dogma…y’know, all that little stuff.
- Status
R
rtechie
Guest
I’m not LDS, but I’ll take a shot at this…
It’s my understanding that the LDS church believes in “continuing revelation”. Any specific doctrine or dogma is subject to review because God is in constant communication with believers and may simply tell them to do something different. Conferring the priesthood on blacks, abolishing polygamy, etc. were the result of further revelation.
I’ll draw an analogy with the celibate priesthood. Early Catholic priests were not celibate and there is no doctrine even remotely like this in the Bible, celibacy was only added as a requirement much later in the 4th or 5th centuries. I’d presume Catholics would claim that directive came from God, much as the LDS church would claim their changes derived from the same source.
It’s my understanding that the LDS church believes in “continuing revelation”. Any specific doctrine or dogma is subject to review because God is in constant communication with believers and may simply tell them to do something different. Conferring the priesthood on blacks, abolishing polygamy, etc. were the result of further revelation.
I’ll draw an analogy with the celibate priesthood. Early Catholic priests were not celibate and there is no doctrine even remotely like this in the Bible, celibacy was only added as a requirement much later in the 4th or 5th centuries. I’d presume Catholics would claim that directive came from God, much as the LDS church would claim their changes derived from the same source.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Celibacy for priests isn’t a Catholic doctrine. It is a practice and so can indeed be changed. (Though not likely.)
Doctrines cannot change. That is the criticism of the Book of Mormon changes, coming from a Catholic POV. Some of the changes are not minor grammar and punctuation changes. They are changes that change doctrine. Particularly, the Mormon doctrine of deity changed as Smith changed his teachings. ie, from modalism to polytheism. His changing views are reflected in the changes made to the Book of Mormon.
Doctrines cannot change. That is the criticism of the Book of Mormon changes, coming from a Catholic POV. Some of the changes are not minor grammar and punctuation changes. They are changes that change doctrine. Particularly, the Mormon doctrine of deity changed as Smith changed his teachings. ie, from modalism to polytheism. His changing views are reflected in the changes made to the Book of Mormon.
L
Lochias
Guest
I have yet to see a “new revelation” from the LDS church that wasn’t politically or financially motivated. Current trend is, apparently, their source of “continuing revelation.”
As another poster has said, priestly celibacy isn’t a doctrine, it’s a discipline; moreover, it is a discipline rooted in understanding of Scripture and a need to better facilitate the role of the priest in his duties to the congregation. Further, it sets a much-needed example for people, demonstrating that, while a beautiful and holy thing, sex is not required to have a full and happy life serving the Lord here on Earth.
R
rtechie
Guest
Based on my reading of Catholic Church history, there’s a lot of changes that seem to be politically and financially motivated to me. The whole debacle involving indulgences that caused the Reformation, for example. You can quibble about the importance of those changes, but the did cause major conflicts (the Great Schism as another example).
I’m confused by the use of terms here. I take “doctrine” to mean “any teaching of the church” and the term “dogma” to mean “a teaching of the church that cannot be changed”.
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100320103802AAz6kD4
You seem to be using the terms this way:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-it-a-doctrine-or-a-discipline
I find the latter use confusing. The idea that a doctrine “cannot change” but it can “develop over time” i.e. change.
Based on your use of terms, I don’t think the changes to the Book of Mormon are “doctrinal” so much as “disciplinary”. i.e. That the angel Moroni gave the golden plates to Joseph Smith is a “doctrine”, the exact contents of those plates is a “discipline”. If I’m wrong, I’m sure an LDS member will correct me.
L
Lochias
Guest
The Church did not change her teachings through any of those things. Some abuses were stopped, and some people left the Church because they simply wanted to take their ball and go home.
Here’s an example I use a lot about doctrine: suicide. The Church has always taught that those who take their lives of their own free will commit a final act of defiance against God, and so choose to spend eternity away from Him. However, we now know, thanks to sciences like psychology and medicine, that many people who commit suicide are NOT doing so of their own free will; in effect, their depression or other mental disease killed them, and so we hope and entrust their souls to God, who knows their hearts as we cannot (the same actually being true of all suicides, anyway).
That is the example of a doctrine developing over time: the teaching never changed, but our understanding and context of it have. Never let it be said that the Church doesn’t take modern times into consideration.
Well, given what I’ve just shown you, I think you’d be wrong. Go and look again at some of the examples offered as changes to the BoM in this thread: they go beyond the pale, completely altering the meaning of things as the LDS see fit. That’s no church, that’s just a business.
L
lax16
Guest
Hi rtechie - You are correct in saying that the LDS church believes in continuing revelation.
There is a difference with the changes in the Book of Mormon. The LDS claim that the revisions over the years have been minor and mainly grammatical when in actuality whole meanings have been changed to reflect Joseph Smith’s evolving belief system.
For example, originally the wording in the BoM conveyed a traditional view of the Trinity but words were later changed/added in an effort to keep up with Joseph Smith’s revelations regarding the Trinity that did not match up with the BoM.
So in this instance, changes to the BoM do not fit into the “continuing revelation” framework. Joseph Smith was contradicting what he claimed was scripture given to him by God and therefore the changes were made to the BoM to make it look as if it was that way all along.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The Church never stopped the practice of indulgences. It is a manner of almsgiving with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, a most formidable work of mercy, to clarify, a spiritual work of mercy. It is also penitential.
You cannot purchase heaven; the Church has never taught such a falsehood. And the abuse of indulgences was not universal but only in certain regions.
The Council of Trent that followed the dismantling of Christianity, meaning before that, the Church in form of its basic beliefs, liturgy, Scripture and apostolic succession was in force for 1,500 years. The Council of Trent answered the corruption and abuses of the Church, and was the reform needed for the Catholic Church.
You cannot purchase heaven; the Church has never taught such a falsehood. And the abuse of indulgences was not universal but only in certain regions.
The Council of Trent that followed the dismantling of Christianity, meaning before that, the Church in form of its basic beliefs, liturgy, Scripture and apostolic succession was in force for 1,500 years. The Council of Trent answered the corruption and abuses of the Church, and was the reform needed for the Catholic Church.
L
lax16
Guest
bump
L
lax16
Guest
T
Thecourts
Guest
First of all, the Salt Lake Trib has and continues it agenda against the LDS church so anything they publish, I check the facts, recognizing their agenda.
- Status