Mormon Doctrine that has changed

[batman1973]

A quote I once heard(edited for content):
“When I was in the LDS Church, I felt like a mushroom. They kept me in the dark, and fed me a bunch of manure.”

 

[RebeccaJ]

RR really set off a nerve, didn’t he? I knew you were angling around for me to add that last one.

Maybe just a little on the venting side. I never do that.

 

[pablope]

Another note: the reason I posted this thread is because so many LDS have denied these doctrines and said they were never taught. McKonkie did not just make this up to write a book. He was a leader when he wrote and made an Apostle after he wrote it.

well…just found this out…baptism of the dead is not in the BOM…but is in the DC…so how could the scriptural BOM contradict the DC?

I wonder how many more instances are like this?

letusreason.org/LDS5.htm

It is a fact that Mormonism from the beginning of its revelation to the end has been in communication with the dead. So we should not be surprised that the issue of salvation has something to do with the dead too. Baptism for the dead is an essential aspect of the fullness of the gospel. It is so essential in fact that no living person can be saved without it. Doctrine and Covenants 20:37 one reads those to be baptized must humble themselves, having “truly repented” of all their sins before being baptized. Baptism is regarded as essential to salvation and those, as the Pharisees and Lawyers (Luke 7:30), who reject baptism are thereby “forfeiting their claim to salvation.” (P. 130)

“The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 7).

But this practice is never mentioned in the Book of Mormon! Then how can the Book of Mormon contain the fullness of the gospel if this is necessary for salvation? Seems some great and precious promises are missing in their own book!

In contrast the Bible teaches us not to seek the dead but the living.

Not only does the Book of Mormon never mention baptism for the dead, and I might add neither does the Bible, it also never mentions temple marriage or any of the other necessary requirements of gaining exaltation or Godhood. There is a good reason for this; they were developed and added as new revelation after the book was finished.

Since this is what occurred, it seems strange that the Doctrine and Covenants would claim that the Book of Mormon is “the fullness of the gospel” when such an important element is missing.

 

[KathleenGee]

Sounds like they draw the evolving structure of their religion from aspects of Catholicism…

I mean, they talk more and more like official Catholic talk…I read in Catholic teachings in regards to homosexuals – ‘in no fault of their own’…same phrase later being used by the Mormon Church, ecclesial terms…canon…reading old Mormon materials…the use of language, imagery, tone was completely different.

But their fruit contrast with ours…we look at Scripture in its entirety, down to each phrase connnected to the rest…no fracturing or fragmenting…and a continuous belief system…it appears to want to appeal to men’s carnal desires regarding pride, domination, and sex.

Their D & C contradicting their Book of Mormon…that is their fruit they have to contend with…constant contradictions to the outside world, and inside Mormonism. It changes because it wants to ‘catch men’…

 

[TexanKnight]

a little odd that the Church they hated for over 100 years would be one that they are trying to emulate now

 

[iloveangels]

We seem to have a few Mormons in here trying to find converts to their weird and wacky religion. These “leading questions” are pretty much a giveaway.

Tex, how come you think we’re interested in what Bruce McConkie has to say? Especially given the FACT that he basically has less credibility on the subject of religion than my dog. The only one who might give a fig what old Bruce might have to say is another Mormon.

Wake up, honey. It’s morning. You are in the CATHOLIC ANSWERS FORUM.

 

[Jerusha]

Texan is talking to the LDS here. He is refuting McConkie. We know that LDS leaders have no power over what Catholics believe.

 

[TexanKnight]

We seem to have a few Mormons in here trying to find converts to their weird and wacky religion. These “leading questions” are pretty much a giveaway.

Tex, how come you think we’re interested in what Bruce McConkie has to say? Especially given the FACT that he basically has less credibility on the subject of religion than my dog. The only one who might give a fig what old Bruce might have to say is another Mormon.

Wake up, honey. It’s morning. You are in the CATHOLIC ANSWERS FORUM.

I am Catholic. I know where I am. Mormons have claimed that certain things I have stated were never LDS Doctrine. I posted to show that those things WERE LDS doctrine.

 

[KathleenGee]

All I can say is to Catholics who were once Mormons…‘What a life!!!’ You all certainly have been exposed to things we never were…

 

[Jerusha]

I guess I can classify myself one of those, KG. although if I had been accused of it, I would have gotten angry. Having lived among them so many years without having taken a critical look at them, they ended up imposing some of their beliefs and values on me. Glad that avoiding alcohol was one of them, but as for most of the rest, a bunch of hooey.

Back home, there is a total paranoia that if you say anything against them bad things will happen. Could be an inter-generational thing.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, I would imagine alot of intergenerational personal issues that also can affect their ability to discern truth from falsehood.

I see intelligent and well educated Mormons here defending their positions, but then the disconnect comes when they can’t step back and see what they are proposing, and has been pointed out…they cherry pick…many times a Catholic religious leader out of context or as in Origen’s case, out of all his great orthodox writings, latch on to his heresies.

 

[PastorVW]

I am an Evangelical minister who spent several months dialoging with LDS local leadership - it addition I have read nearly all of their “accepted works”.

The bottom line is that our Mormon friends have no problem believing contradictory things and no problem with changing doctrine. They have no problem with the fact that the Book of Mormon does not teach core LDS doctrines - but, in fact refutes them.

So what do they believe in? The answer is revealed when you ask them how they can believe something directly contradicted by the Bible or the Book of Mormon - in every case the answer they gave me always began with, “The prophet has said…”. Ultimately he is their final authority with the power to change the church’s doctrine, even if it directly contradicts previous doctrine. He has power far beyond anything the Pope has in the Catholic Church.

 

[TheExorcist]

He has power far beyond anything the Pope has in the Catholic Church.

That’s really true. I mean how many other churches have their members consecrate themselves to “consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.”

That’s a powerful oath and carries a lot of weight with Mormons

 

[theidler]

well…just found this out…baptism of the dead is not in the BOM…but is in the DC…so how could the scriptural BOM contradict the DC?

I wonder how many more instances are like this?

letusreason.org/LDS5.htm

It is a fact that Mormonism from the beginning of its revelation to the end has been in communication with the dead. So we should not be surprised that the issue of salvation has something to do with the dead too. Baptism for the dead is an essential aspect of the fullness of the gospel. It is so essential in fact that no living person can be saved without it. Doctrine and Covenants 20:37 one reads those to be baptized must humble themselves, having “truly repented” of all their sins before being baptized. Baptism is regarded as essential to salvation and those, as the Pharisees and Lawyers (Luke 7:30), who reject baptism are thereby “forfeiting their claim to salvation.” (P. 130)

“The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 7).

But this practice is never mentioned in the Book of Mormon! Then how can the Book of Mormon contain the fullness of the gospel if this is necessary for salvation? Seems some great and precious promises are missing in their own book!

In contrast the Bible teaches us not to seek the dead but the living.

Not only does the Book of Mormon never mention baptism for the dead, and I might add neither does the Bible, it also never mentions temple marriage or any of the other necessary requirements of gaining exaltation or Godhood. There is a good reason for this; they were developed and added as new revelation after the book was finished.

Since this is what occurred, it seems strange that the Doctrine and Covenants would claim that the Book of Mormon is “the fullness of the gospel” when such an important element is missing.

Reminds me of a saying - in order to be a good liar, you should make sure you have excellent memory.

 

[ParkerD]

To the general reader:

For the benefit of anyone who wonders what the words “fullness of the gospel” or “fullness of the everlasting gospel” mean, then if one cross references those words in their use in all the scriptures, they would include the following elements in the meaning:

The fullness of the Good News of Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of the world, and of how to come unto Him through faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, justification through Jesus Christ, sanctification through the Holy Ghost, and enduring faithfully to the end of one’s life as they encounter the trials and oppositions of life.

The Book of Mormon includes all of those elements in its teachings, with tremendous depth through examples of many people who go through that process in their own lives.

 

[theidler]

To the general reader:

For the benefit of anyone who wonders what the words “fullness of the gospel” or “fullness of the everlasting gospel” mean, then if one cross references those words in their use in all the scriptures, they would include the following elements in the meaning:

The fullness of the Good News of Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of the world, and of how to come unto Him through faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, justification through Jesus Christ, sanctification through the Holy Ghost, and enduring faithfully to the end of one’s life as they encounter the trials and oppositions of life.

The Book of Mormon includes all of those elements in its teachings, with tremendous depth through examples of many people who go through that process in their own lives.

And yet it’s missing a lot else that is so crucial to the Mormon gospel, as expounded in the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Hmmm.

 

[soren1]

**
“We have no revelation on abortion”**

Didn’t you assume Mormons were pro-life? That’s certainly the image their church attempts to broadcast, and most Mormons, in fact, mistakenly believe their church opposes abortion and regards it as an objective evil. But not so.

Indeed, the Mormon church accepts abortion for a number of reasons. The Church Handbook of Instructions, approved in September, 1998, states that abortion may be performed in the following circumstances: pregnancy resulting from rape or incest; a competent physician says the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy; or a competent physician says that the “fetus” has severe defects that will not allow the “baby” to survive beyond birth. In any case, the persons responsible must first consult with their church leader and receive God’s approval in prayer (156).

This same Handbook, the official policies of the Mormon church to be followed by all local church leaders throughout the world, also claims: “It is a fact that a child has life before birth. However, there is no direct revelation on when the spirit enters the body” (156). Previous teachings by former Mormon prophets referred to the unborn child as “a child,” “a baby,” a “human being,” and decried abortion as “killing,” “a grievous sin,” “a damnable practice.” Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet who died in 1985, taught, “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the church in unalterably opposing all abortions” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 189).

It appears that this “unalterable” position, constantly “affirmed,” is just another in a series of doctrinal and moral teachings that Mormons have reworded, reworked, rescinded, or reneged—though never officially renounced. Such is the quality of the Mormon belief in “continuing revelation.” Don’t expect dogmatic or ethical consistency. Rather, look for expediency and conformity with “the times.”

A further statement in the Handbook says: “The church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion (156).” While the Mormon prophet claims to speak the mind and will of God, he can neither figure out when the unborn child becomes human or if it is God’s desire that we protect the unborn unconditionally.

Your Mormon friend will offer the excuse that his church leaves many decisions to the free agency (free will) of its people, and that abortion is one such concern. You might point out the irony in the fact that the Mormon church has no hesitation or uncertainty in making the following declarations:

1. “The church opposes gambling in any form” (including lotteries). Members are also urged to oppose legislation and government sponsorship of any form of gambling (Handbook, 150).
2. The church also opposes [correctly, of course] pornography in any form (158).
   
   
3. Church members are to reject all efforts to legally authorize or support same-sex unions (158).

There is no need for a member to pray for divine guidance or seek church approval for such activities, for there will be no divine or ecclesiastical finessing of morality to permit even an occasional bingo game. A prayerful game of poker, unrepented, will bar the member from the temple and ultimate salvation; a prayerful, by-the-book abortion, unrepented, won’t.

catholic.com/tracts/mormon-stumpers

It should not be overlooked that the Mormon Church’s explicit teachings on abortion relate not to whether abortion should be illegal or not, but only to whether it is moral. Whereas the Catholic Church teaches that respect for life is a duty of civil society as a whole, the Mormon Church only sets (incoherent) guidelines about how individuals can guide their decisions about when to have abortions. Clearly seen, this actually amounts to a pro-choice doctrine because A) The exceptions they allow are extremely broad, including the “good health” of the mother, and B) even though they advise Mormon women to get counsel from their bishop, it is the individual woman who has the task of discerning whether she should have the child. Consequently, a broad range of abortion practices are placed within the scope of private judgment and are not matters of public morality. That view of abortion is the definition of “pro-choice.” Many Mormons realize this, and Mitt Romney said said, during the 2008 election that he knew high-level members of the LDS Church who where pro-choice. That surprised a lot of people, but not me. They’ve read their texts and thought about them. You can’t think long about LDS abortion teaching to realize that it is not pro-life, and indeed, in 1973, when it was first published, it represented what was the pro-choice party line at the time. Look where that has led us.

 

[TexanKnight]

To the general reader:

For the benefit of anyone who wonders what the words “fullness of the gospel” or “fullness of the everlasting gospel” mean, then if one cross references those words in their use in all the scriptures, they would include the following elements in the meaning:

The fullness of the Good News of Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of the world, and of how to come unto Him through faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, justification through Jesus Christ, sanctification through the Holy Ghost, and enduring faithfully to the end of one’s life as they encounter the trials and oppositions of life.

The Book of Mormon includes all of those elements in its teachings, with tremendous depth through examples of many people who go through that process in their own lives.

As so it should, since it copied a lot of its content and all of its teachings from the Bible

 

[TexanKnight]

And yet it’s missing a lot else that is so crucial to the Mormon gospel, as expounded in the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Hmmm.

Yep…the Book of Mormon has the Fullness of the Gospel except where it doesn’t

 

[ParkerD]

And yet it’s missing a lot else that is so crucial to the Mormon gospel, as expounded in the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Hmmm.

Hi, theidler,

I hope you are doing well.

The Book of Mormon was very explicit in reiterating several times that:

1. The people who lived by their covenants were given more knowledge and understanding at various points in time within the history described in the Book of Mormon than was being revealed in the Book of Mormon itself. The Lord said “For I will try the faith of my people”. This is completely in line with both Old and New Testament knowledge of how the Lord works.
2. That when the Book of Mormon came forth, there would be other knowledge given to the righteous Gentiles and the house of Israel that would be important for them.

You might read Daniel 12:4 and 10. We are in the end times.

Peace to you and to all readers.