Changing Doctrine in the LDS church

[majick275]

Here is where we can discuss which doctrines have changed over time in the LDS church, how they have changed and the significance of the changes. It is also admissible here to discuss changes in practices as well as long we differentiate between the two.

This thread originates from this discussion:
Chris Jodrey:

I would disagree with you there. It depends who you ask. This would require another thread, of course, but Mormons certainly don’t think of their doctrine as changing. On the other hand, many think that about the Catholic Church, whether or not Catholics believe otherwise.

majick275:

Which Mormons don’t think the doctrine has changed from Adam God? or The descendants of Cain never being able to receive th epriesthood? waht about only those who enter into polygamy being able to acheive exaltation? I mean the scriptures themselves have changed meaningfully. Look ath the 1830 BoM v. the current. The very nature of God has changed for LDS. BoM and Bible teach one God, Lectures on Faith which WAS part of D&C taught Two Gods, Joseph Smith taught at one point Three Gods. Now it’s a Godhead. Lectures on Faith taught the Father was a personage of Spirit, Current LDS doctrine is he has a body of flesh and bone. You are right this could take another thread but you see my point.

Please discuss

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Here is where we can discuss which doctrines have changed over time in the LDS church, how they have changed and the significance of the changes…

I don’t see a “change in doctrine” in any of these things you have mentioned.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Mormon doctrine on deity started with one God, then became two Gods, then beame three Gods. That doesn’t sound like change to you?

One prophet taught that Adam is God another said that is false doctrine. Again, that’s not a change?

One prophet teaches that ONLY polygamist reach maximum exaltation another says polygamy isn’t necessary at all.

One prophet says descendants of Cain can’t have the priesthood until everyone else already has and that the penalty for intermarrying wiht their race is death. Another prophet says every worthy male can have the priesthood and while interacial marriage is not recomended it is allowed.

None of these are changes in doctrine?

 

[dennisknapp]

majick275:

None of these are changes in doctrine?

Hey, as long as you have continuing revelation it doesn’t matter. What matters is what is said today, or tomorrow. I mean, how do we even know this was actually said, or taught. History is just a leap in the dark.

Peace

 

[majick275]

But see continuing revelation gives you an excuse for changing doctrine. I was expecting the line upon line deal from the LDS. Complete denial is shocking…and revealing.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Pick a specific issue. The one you find most telling.

 

[majick275]

That actual doctrine changes. That is the most disturbing. Here is a church that claims to be led by direct revelation. You don’t need to interpret because the prophet can ask god and get the answer. That would make one think you could get it right the first time. (if it were true)
The first example is the doctrine on deity, the nature of God if you will. You can start with that.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

On the topic of deity it is. I’m sure you’re familiar with the LDS scriptures explaining God. So, what have been the changes? D&C 130:22 goes back a long time. Have you found otherwise?

I think that something you will find in general on the topic of the Trinity is that it can be explained in many different ways. For example, Joseph Smith said that we don’t believe in the Trinity. But then in Spanish there’s no clear way to say Godhead, so we always say Trinidad, Trinity. Really, he was referring to the common perception of the Trinity, not the Trinity as it can be otherwise defined, as there is more than one concept of Trinity out there.

God can have lots of names, and He and Christ are so similar in so many ways that it’s no wonder that there is confusion by the “rational thinkers”. Anyway, it’s not simple, so don’t pretend that all is black and white. I’m convinced that the LDS understanding of this doctrine has not changed in any significant way since the days of Joseph Smith.

 

[majick275]

But it changes so much DURING JS time. There is no semantic excuse for stating plainly on one occasion there is one God and another there are two Gods (and describing their nature in detail) and on another stating there are three Gods. (and once again describing them in detail) Joseph Smith did this over time. i think that part is pretty black and white.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

When you think about it, none of those statements are wrong. Is God one? Of course. Are there two Gods? In a way, yes: God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. Are there three? If you include the Holy Ghost, yes. You see, in one way they can be thought of as separate beings, and in another they can be thought of as One, hence the word Trinity.

What you would have to do in order to prove that this doctrine was changing as you say, you’d have to show that Joseph Smith thought about this doctrine as you do (not as I do), very black and white, and in order to do that, among others, you would need to show that his thinking was consistent at certain time periods. For example, you could try to prove that he consistently thought that God was one being by himself before 1828; then from 1828-1837 he really thought there were two Gods, the Father and the Son. And then that from 1837-1842 believed that there were actually three Gods. And then in the last two show that he believed in lots of gods. You’d have to show that he believed all this LITERALLY, not symbolically or metaphorically or interpretively in any way. Personally, I think this would be difficult to prove, but then antis have been trying to do it for years; maybe you’ll have some luck?

 

[majick275]

Chris Jodrey:

When you think about it, none of those statements are wrong. Is God one? Of course. Are there two Gods? In a way, yes: God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. Are there three? If you include the Holy Ghost, yes. You see, in one way they can be thought of as separate beings, and in another they can be thought of as One, hence the word Trinity.

But we have JS detailed descriptions showing his evolving beliefs. They cannot be one, two and three. I agree that the three personages are one God, JS did not. He taught that in the beginning but later taught ONLY two claiming the Holy Ghost was the shared mind of the Father and the Son. When he went to three he was very explicit in claiming that they are three GODS.
Chris Jodrey:

What you would have to do in order to prove that this doctrine was changing as you say, you’d have to show that Joseph Smith thought about this doctrine as you do (not as I do), very black and white, and in order to do that, among others, you would need to show that his thinking was consistent at certain time periods. For example, you could try to prove that he consistently thought that God was one being by himself before 1828; then from 1828-1837 he really thought there were two Gods, the Father and the Son. And then that from 1837-1842 believed that there were actually three Gods. And then in the last two show that he believed in lots of gods. You’d have to show that he believed all this LITERALLY, not symbolically or metaphorically or interpretively in any way.

But he did just that and we can read his words on this today. He went to great lengths to explain his beliefs on the nature of God on many occasions.
Chris Jodrey:

Personally, I think this would be difficult to prove, but then antis have been trying to do it for years; maybe you’ll have some luck?

I think it’s always been obvious. LDS just don’t seem to have a problem with it. They seem locked in on their chance at Godhood and thus WANT to believe that JS was a prophet because they want what he claimed they could have. If you absolutley believe in JS then you just accept that the rest is all true because he said so and any seeming obstacles are merely the result of our own lack of understanding. My problem is that JS has provided nothing that causes me to believe in him and has demonstrated through his actions and teachings many reasons for me to think him a false prophet. (all based on what the Bible says) There is a reason why after all these years you only have about 4 million active LDS in the world today (out of a total claimed membership of 12 million) and of them only a fraction with Temple recomends.

Each LDS “splinter group” is the direct result of a change in either doctrine or practice or both.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

There is a reason why after all these years you only have about 4 million active LDS in the world today (out of a total claimed membership of 12 million) and of them only a fraction with Temple recomends.

Hey, um… aren’t you Catholic?
(No offense intended.)

Okay, so now that you’ve worn your fingers out, where are these quotes? Oh, and in context, if you will.

 

[majick275]

yes very catholic.

I’ll try and give you LDS references so that you can determine the proper context. (I realize that creates a lot of work for you to research, read and respond but I think it more fair)

JS monotheistic views are in context all throughout the BoM(Mosiah chapters 15&16, Ether chapters 4&12, and Helamn chapter 14) and JST Bible. (Luke 10:22 is an example) The “first vision” account in his OWN hand as well.(Dean C. Jessee, “The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” BYU Studies, Vol. IX, No. 3 (Spring 1969), pp. 275-294) The Book of Moses appears to fit this as well. D%C 20:28 even in current edition.

JS “two Gods doctrine” is found in lectures on Faith, lecture 5 which was in the original D&C. (approved by common consent in general conference August 17, 1835) This wasn’t removed until 1921 and strangely enough the removal was not put to a vote in genreal conference.

JS three gods is best outlined in Joseph Smith’s Sermon On Plurality of Gods
(as printed in History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479)

JS plurality of Gods is seen in History of the Church, Vol. 6, page 474, D&C 121, Book of Abraham Chapters 4&5 and the king Follet discourse. (which by the way was given in general conference april 7, 1844)