Mormon Doctrine that has changed

[TruthLiving]

It comes from the temple ceremony. The only place that Mormons discuss the temple ceremony is in the temple.

There was a '69 film and then a '90. There was also a much earlier version that was changed in the earlier part of the 20th century.

Ask your friends about the temple ceremony.

If you really want you can actually google the temple ceremony if you so chose.

I asked what they could tell me — remember goes on in the temple is sacred versus what I have heard from others, that is secret which is incorrect.

Anyway, they told me that is non sense, so I guess you are going to tell me they are lying.
Further, most of the things on the internet are not always correct – going to my point, unless it is official from LDS church headquarters, it is one’s opinion, sometimes Mormons, ex Mormons, or never been Mormons, who put things on the web are wrong regarding official LDS doctrine.

 

[Marie5890]

I asked what they could tell me — remember goes on in the temple is sacred versus what I have heard from others, that is secret which is incorrect.

Anyway, they told me that is non sense, so I guess you are going to tell me they are lying.

If they have been thru the endowment ceremony after the 1990 change, they would not have have seen it. So, no they would not be lying to you. Significant and major changes were done to the ceremony at that time

( Have they been thru the endowment ceremony or have they only done baptisms for the dead?)

However, it’s been changed. That is factual too.

Like I said before, the '69 version with Gordon Jump shows the Christian minister that others have mentioned

 

[TexanKnight]

I asked what they could tell me — remember goes on in the temple is sacred versus what I have heard from others, that is secret which is incorrect.

Anyway, they told me that is non sense, so I guess you are going to tell me they are lying.
Further, most of the things on the internet are not always correct – going to my point, unless it is official from LDS church headquarters, it is one’s opinion, sometimes Mormons, ex Mormons, or never been Mormons, who put things on the web are wrong regarding official LDS doctrine.

Prove that anything I have said is wrong

 

[TruthLiving]

Prove that anything I have said is wrong

Is it official from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? If it is not from a source that written by someone not approved or authorized, is obviously not official.

So are your statements official so that I could go to lds.org or mormon.org and find them on those sites??

 

[TexanKnight]

Is it official from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? If it is not from a source that written by someone not approved or authorized, is obviously not official.

So are your statements official so that I could go to lds.org or mormon.org and find them on those sites??

That is not proof. That is not proof at all. You have hinted over and over that I am lying, that as an ex I must be lying eith an agenda. Prove that the points I said are wrong.

 

[Marie5890]

Is it official from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? If it is not from a source that written by someone not approved or authorized, is obviously not official.

So are your statements official so that I could go to lds.org or mormon.org and find them on those sites??

I wouldnt call any GA an “unapproved or unauthorized” LDS source, TrueLiving.

They are General Authorities for a reason.

 

[TruthLiving]

I wouldnt call any GA an “unapproved or unauthorized” LDS source, TrueLiving.

They are General Authorities for a reason.

According to my Mormon friends, they understand that they are General Authorities.

Here is a example, in Utah, one of the General Authorities could be a non official LDS event, giving a speech. To my friends, for them they should not consider anything said as LDS doctrine, since in Utah they give a lot of speeches.

So that is another example that could be misunderstood as official.

 

[TexanKnight]

According to my Mormon friends, they understand that they are General Authorities.

Here is a example, in Utah, one of the General Authorities could be a non official LDS event, giving a speech. To my friends, for them they should not consider anything said as LDS doctrine, since in Utah they give a lot of speeches.

So that is another example that could be misunderstood as official.

I get it. You cannot prove that anything I have said is false.

Thank you

 

[Marie5890]

According to my Mormon friends, they understand that they are General Authorities.

Here is a example, in Utah, one of the General Authorities could be a non official LDS event, giving a speech. To my friends, for them they should not consider anything said as LDS doctrine, since in Utah they give a lot of speeches.

So that is another example that could be misunderstood as official.

Yes, that is true.

It’s what they say in general conference.

 

[Marie5890]

Hmmmm,

I wonder if the official version of Joseph Smith’s first vision is considered an official publication and doctrinal by the LDS church?

(or is it part of the D&C?)

I dont remember…

 

[twopekinguys]

Are we playing dodge ball?

 

[Jerusha]

Yes, the official version of the vision is in the D & C. Therefore it is doctrinal. Therefore, JS saw God and lived, again contradicting MANY places in the OT and NT.

 

[TruthLiving]

Hmmmm,

I wonder if the official version of Joseph Smith’s first vision is considered an official publication and doctrinal by the LDS church?

(or is it part of the D&C?)

I dont remember…

Of course it is.

So my guess, you are heading down the number of First Vision statements made so that means that Joseph Smith creating it or made it up — yet Joseph Smith never denied it all.

So where are you going with the First Vision? My friends and I have talked about lot of things.

 

[Miriam1947]

I am seeing way too much popcorn tonight on these forums. I may have to make some with butter. Oh dear!

 

[sallybutler]

Yet, where is the solid evidence from LDS church headquarters state this practice is accurate? The ex LDS person always to me is questionable, since the ex LDS people or never been a Mormon have a agenda.

Is this article from a official LDS publication? I doubt it, continuing to make my point that Mormons can and have published things that they believe — does not make it similar to official LDS headquarters — further ex LDS or never been Mormon can believe whatever — official LDS doctrine and practice is the only I things I am seeking ---- my Mormon friends and our discussions have been accurate in light of what I read on the forums – misunderstanding and hate.

Every time I’ve asked if there is an LDS equivalent to the Catholic imprinteur (reviewed for adherence to the teachings of the church), I’ve been either ignored or told that the Book of Mormon is really all there is. So basically, there is really no official source for approved teachings. Which suggests that what was true last week may not be true next week.

While I may not always like what the church teaches (especially when it conflicts with what I want to do to make my life easier or more ‘fun’), I do have to admit that I always know where she stands on an issue.

 

[Marie5890]

lds.org/library/display/0,4945,104-1-3-4,00.html

Official LDS website, thus THE credible and official source

’ I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” ’

 

[Miriam1947]

Here is something i find interesting about doctrine changing, when it pertains to birth control.

From lds.org:

“Children are one of the greatest blessings in life, and their birth into loving and nurturing families is central to God’s purposes for humanity. When husband and wife are physically able, they have the privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world and to nurture them. The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for the husband and wife.”

From lds-mormon.com:

“It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many chldren to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord.”

Notice on the quote from lds.org, that the Lord is now left out of the decision. The second quote actually comes from the 1998 version of the church handbook of instruction.

What I also find interesting is how birth defects play into all of this. Birth control, and abortion. There is that little loophole about birth defects.

“Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by.”
(First Presidency {David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner} Letter to presidents of stakes, bishops of wards, and presidents of missions, 14 April 1969)

I believe it was Parker, as well as a couple of lds posters (who are no longer with us), that have said abortion in the face of serious birth defects was allowed.

How sad.

Sources used:
lds-mormon.com/birth.shtml
lds.org/study/topics/birth-control?lang=eng&query=birth+control

“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

 

[Marie5890]

Every time I’ve asked if there is an LDS equivalent to the Catholic imprinteur (reviewed for adherence to the teachings of the church), I’ve been either ignored or told that the Book of Mormon is really all there is. So basically, there is really no official source for approved teachings. Which suggests that what was true last week may not be true next week.

While I may not always like what the church teaches (especially when it conflicts with what I want to do to make my life easier or more ‘fun’), I do have to admit that I always know where she stands on an issue.

Sally when I was LDS there was no imprinteur equivalent.

The general rule of thumb was the standard works and what the GA’s said in general conference were to be taken as scripture.

And that the living prophet always trumped a dead prophet.

 

[TruthLiving]

Every time I’ve asked if there is an LDS equivalent to the Catholic imprinteur (reviewed for adherence to the teachings of the church), I’ve been either ignored or told that the Book of Mormon is really all there is. So basically, there is really no official source for approved teachings. Which suggests that what was true last week may not be true next week.

While I may not always like what the church teaches (especially when it conflicts with what I want to do to make my life easier or more ‘fun’), I do have to admit that I always know where she stands on an issue.

Official LDS church is the scriptures, including the Book of Mormon, general conference, other official publications.

So what officially has the church taught that you do not like or conflicts with your life?

 

[Marie5890]

I am seeing way too much popcorn tonight on these forums. I may have to make some with butter. Oh dear!

Kettle corn for me please.