Mormon shift toward more traditional Christianity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter searcher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by BJColbert
Click to expand...
God didn’t write the Catechism…did He? Why do you need it when you have God’s word? The Bible. As you say it is the one and only word you need and none other should be accepted or written, or added to it. Catholics do not change God’s word they just add whatever suits their purpose to God’s word, and call it God’s word. Point out in your Bible where it says priests should be celibate, where does it say women should become nuns and be celibate?

The Bible does say to multiply and replenish the earth. Why is it a sin for a regular member of the Catholic Church to practice birth control, and not a sin for a priest and nun to deliberately choose not to follow God’s commandments to have children? It seems the priests should be the first to show the way to their parishners by having wives and children, and learning themselves what God wants them to learn. It seems to me they take the easy way out by not having the responsibility of families, and letting the church support them. That to me, seems like committing suicide, to just withdraw from normal life and hide behind the church.

I wish I could do that sometimes, but too late I have a husband, children, grandchildren and responsibilities which help me to grow and learn.

BJColbert,

I don’t believe you read or possibly understood my post. The Catechism does not add to the bible, it explains and defines our beliefs based on the bible. It does not contradict the bible or Christ’s teachings. The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price adds to the bible and Gods word with serious contradictions and theory that has never been discussed. This is also evident in the Journal of Discourses published by the early LDS church. Protestants take the bible as Sola Scriptura and single out one passage and take it out of context. LDS are guilty of this too when they reference 1 Corinthians to justify “Baptism for the Dead” and many other biblical passages to justify the Book of Mormon. If you have not read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Bible, like I have with addition to BOM, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, Journal of Discourses, and LDS church history, I suggest you do to understand your husbands and your Faith a little more clearly.

With regards to the celibacy of our Priests and Nuns, that is a personal choice and a vow that they take to do God’s work for the Church and Her people. A married man is concerned with worldly issues, such as providing for his wife and children, working at job that would support them, retirement, ect, ect. A Priest or Nun is not bothered with these worldly chores, they have devoted their entire lives to the Church and it’s people with very little reward financially. Would you also say that Christ and his Disciples took the easy way out as you put it by remaining celibate and hiding behind the church. With regards to your statement of taking the easy way out and being paid to do so, how does that fit with the LDS churches highly paid clergy in Salt Lake City? Those who cast stones should not live in glass houses.
Originally posted by BJColbert
Click to expand...
It is going to be funny to see the looks on all faces when the things you laugh and ridicule now are shown to be true.

I never thought the judgment of man in the next life would be a funny mater. I don’t believe I laughed or ridiculed any of your churches beliefs. Why do you and most LDS have such a persecution complex about your faith, it’s not as if you are being driven out of Missouri for it.

God Bless,

ex-mo
 
BJ, regardless of what you were taught or not taught, the fact is that those of us who were church members in Utah were taught the doctrine of eternal progression. My husband grew up with that teaching, as did all of those Mormons that I know who still live there. This was never considered “an opinion” of a man who, oh by the way, just happened to be a prophet. If you had said that to any of us, you would have been considered aberrant, and very possible an apostate.

Note that I said doctrine. This is not like priestly celibacy or abstaining from meat on Fridays, which are practices. and therefore subject to change if necessary. Doctrine is, or should be, immutable. Doctrine is the very backbone of faith, the foundation upon which all teachings and practices depend.

No, this was intricately involved in the fate of all good Mormons, something that was to be aspired to and expounded on at ward and stake conferences. I suspect that not much was said at General Conferences because, after all, the entire world could possibly be listening in.

It’s times like this that I wish I had kept all of my Relief Society books and missionary pamphlets. :banghead:
 
It is not a good idea to begin dragging up Old Testament practices and applying them as a test to determine the true Church. Unless you practice animal sacrifice in the Temple and keep kosher (as examples), you also have accepted that many practices changed with Christ and with His new Church (whichever church you hold that to be).

As for celibacy, He Himself was celibate and commended it to His followers. So too with St. Paul. Paul recommended celibacy, while recognizing that it was not for everyone.

Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Christ’s own words

1 Corinthians 7:7-9

7For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. St. Paul

1 Corinthians 7:31-34
31And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
32But I would have yo4 without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
34There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
St. Paul
At this point, I will say no more of this subject. We seem to have strayed from the original topic of the thread.
 
BJ Colbert:
BUT it has never been church doctrine,…It is simply the belief of one man and because he said it and he was a prophet, some people expounded on it and believed it also. In my 62 years I have never been taught(as in a class) that God was once a man. I have only been taught the principle of eternal progression, and even though I have heard it said by certain people, I have never been made aware of it being anything but opinion. BJ
Click to expand...
BJ,
What you have posted here is 100% false. You owe to yourself to know the truth. Please do some research before you post again on this subject. This is not a matter open to interpretation. Either the church taught this doctrine or it didn’t.

If you believe that it really doesn’t matter that the LDS Church changed it’s teaching on this subject then just say so. But, please don’t say that “it has never been church doctrine”. It was for 167 years and I can prove it to you.
 
BJ Colbert:
Point out in your Bible where it says priests should be celibate, where does it say women should become nuns and be celibate?
The Bible does say to multiply and replenish the earth. Why is it a sin for a regular member of the Catholic Church to practice birth control, and not a sin for a priest and nun to deliberately choose not to follow God’s commandments to have children? 👍 BJ
Click to expand...
BJ, Here you go. Please take the time and actually read these verses. What I have posted here is simply a commenting summary on each one. These were put together by John Salza.

Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church’s practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.

Matt. 19:29 - Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.

Matt. 22:30 - Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus’ kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.

1 Cor 7:1 – Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.

1 Cor. 7:7 - Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is.

1 Cor. 7:27 – Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church.

1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”

1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church’s celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church’s Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.

1 Tim. 4:3 - in this verse, Paul refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. Many non-Catholics also use this verse to impugn the Church’s practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided because the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament. In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good. Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God).

1 Tim. 5:9-12 - Paul recommends that older widows take a pledge of celibacy. This was the beginning of women religious orders.

2 Tim. 2:3-4 - Paul instructs his bishop Timothy that no soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim his to satisfy the One who enlisted him. Paul is using an analogy to describe the role of the celibate priesthood in the Church.

Rev. 14:4 - unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.

Isaiah 56:3-7 - the eunuchs who keep God’s covenant will have a special place in the kingdom of heaven.

Jer. 16:1-4 - Jeremiah is told by God not to take a wife or have children.

BJ,
As you can see, on the subjects of marriage and celibacy, the LDS Church focuses on one commandment given to Adam & Eve, a married couple, and then ignores the rest of the Bible.
 
"In the end times, there will be a convergence of all religious belief systems into one church directed by our one, holy catholic, and apostolic God, Prince of the Air, the Day Star, son of the Dawn.

All will receive the computer chip in their forehead. All will bow down before their Master and Lord, Pope Peter II. All will march upon Israel and, behold, the skies will break open, and a figure in dazzling white will appear.

By his mouth he will smote many…the flesh of others will be consumed a feast for the beasts of the field, and the birds of the air.

Then the righteous, those who faithfully served Jehovah God from 1875 - 1975 will be raised, ehaulted to reign on a new paradise earth filled with lots of white people in modest dress and white picket fences in front of colonial houses."

The moral of this story is: Some people will believe almost anything. Members of the “alternative sects” (in pre-PC speak, “cults”) are quite gullible in this regard.

It depends on what the meaning of “Christian” is.😃
 
40.png
TeriGator:
BJ, regardless of what you were taught or not taught, the fact is that those of us who were church members in Utah were taught the doctrine of eternal progression. My husband grew up with that teaching, as did all of those Mormons that I know who still live there. This was never considered “an opinion” of a man who, oh by the way, just happened to be a prophet. If you had said that to any of us, you would have been considered aberrant, and very possible an apostate.

Note that I said doctrine. This is not like priestly celibacy or abstaining from meat on Fridays, which are practices. and therefore subject to change if necessary. Doctrine is, or should be, immutable. Doctrine is the very backbone of faith, the foundation upon which all teachings and practices depend.

No, this was intricately involved in the fate of all good Mormons, something that was to be aspired to and expounded on at ward and stake conferences. I suspect that not much was said at General Conferences because, after all, the entire world could possibly be listening in.

It’s times like this that I wish I had kept all of my Relief Society books and missionary pamphlets. :banghead:
Click to expand...
Teri, modern LDS have a real dilemma here. They are still taught the doctrine of eternal progression but are no longer taught that man may become a God. Huh? Don’t they go hand in hand? If you’re not “progressing” to Godhood then what are you progressing to? Where do they think the doctrine of eternal progresion came from??? It came out of necessity. In order to for Joseph Smith’s “1st principle of the Gospel” to make sense there had to be a vehicle for a man to reach Godhood. The doctrine of eternal progression was born! Modern LDS better hold on tight because “eternal progression” will be the next doctrine fall by the wayside with nary a thought.
 
40.png
ex-mormon:
BJColbert,

I don’t believe you read or possibly understood my post.
Click to expand...
Ex-mo,

I think that pretty much sums it up. Blissful ignorance?
 
40.png
searcher:
This question is for current LDS, Catholic converts from the LDS Church, or students of the LDS Church. Have you noticed a shift in emphasis in LDS belief toward a personal relationship with Jesus and His grace. I’ve even come into contact with LDS who call themselves “born-again” Mormon Christians while still maintaining the Church’s basic beliefs. Even the leadership seems to be encouraging this emphasis. Perhaps some may say that this is just a leadership ploy to make themselves appear more Christian. However, most I know who hold these views seem to be quite sincere. Could it be that the Holy Spirit is working in the hearts and minds of those LDS who truly want to know Savior better?
Click to expand...
Searcher,

This is a very good question and one that I don’t feel very qualified to answer. I share your wish that Latter-day Saints will continue to get to know the Saviour better. I think you would enjoy an article written by Robert Millet on the perceived change in emphasis back to the Christology in the Book of Mormon. Dr. Millet has spent much of his career writing about LDS doctrine and participating in interfaith dialogues.

See:[
https://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/PDFfiles/29.3Millet.pdf](http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,510-1-3067-1,00.html)

Also you might be interested in Millet’s address at a Library of Congress conference on much the same subject. The LDS church website should make it available this Thursday. Dr. Millet spoke for the last 20-25 minutes in the May 7 morning session (1).

See:
lds.org/library/display/0,4945,510-1-3067-1,00.html

Good luck in your search,
fool
 
40.png
searcher:
This question is for current LDS, Catholic converts from the LDS Church, or students of the LDS Church. Have you noticed a shift in emphasis in LDS belief toward a personal relationship with Jesus and His grace. I’ve even come into contact with LDS who call themselves “born-again” Mormon Christians while still maintaining the Church’s basic beliefs. Even the leadership seems to be encouraging this emphasis. Perhaps some may say that this is just a leadership ploy to make themselves appear more Christian. However, most I know who hold these views seem to be quite sincere. Could it be that the Holy Spirit is working in the hearts and minds of those LDS who truly want to know Savior better?
Click to expand...
I really liked the first post in this thread by Searcher so I have quoted it. There is much that can be said about some of the off topic comments throughout this thread, but solid apologetic responses would be both off topic and unacceptable.

I believe there is some evidence of a shift. I do not believe it is quite as profound as many would like to suggest that it is, but my personal review of LDS history suggests that there are some shifts towards a more mainstream view of the Gospel. There are still some profound and significant differences some of which I consider to be critical in many waysg, but we have more in common than different IMO.

Why is it not as profound as some say IMO?

Both never-LDS and former LDS seem to strongly emphasize what they perceive to be differences between what they feel is LDS doctrine and what they believe. Seldom do you find LDS critics quoting Joseph Smith’s heralding the truths embraced by non-LDS Christians and pledging to defend them in their beliefs. A Catholic friend of mine once observed that he thought it was inappropriate to try and present the LDS as weird and therefore wrong, but he sees this as a common tactic by those who feel they must respond to the CoJCoLDS. He is Catholic because of what being Catholic means not because LDS are weird. So anyway, IMO there are differences between the CoJCoLDS in years past and today, but many non-LDS like to preserve the seemingly non-Christian things from the past and neglect the other aspects. This creates an appearance of greater change than really exists.

So since I suggested I think there has been at least some change, why does this change exist?

First, it is important to note that no church is without development. Beliefs develop. I have yet to see a fully fleshed out belief structure come down from heaven never to be explained, expanded upon, and … If this were some requirement for heaven-sent-ness I would be an atheist/agnostic.

Next, I believe that as LDS interact with other Christians we are finding much that is beneficial. We are finding that many of our ideas are more similar than we thought; that words have been used differently, but some meanings are quite close. How do we describe the interplay of Faith and Works? Is Grace an umbrella or does it interplay with Works. My answers and those of some LDS are entirely in line with Catholic teachings on Infused Righteousness. More than 50% of our scriptures are shared, wouldn’t it make sense for our doctrines to have some commonalities? The Catholic Church has been tackling the interplay of Faith and Works for over a 1000 years, perhaps there is a Biblical answer LDS should get behind.

Most importantly, I believe that the past members of the CoJCoLDS are responsible for some inappropriate emphasis upon more peculiar aspects of the gospel. I believe this occurred because the members of the church choose to rebel against those “Christians” who they (rightly or wrongly) believed killed the prophet of God. The best example I have for this is the Trinity. God is one and God is three. The BOM demands this at least as much as the Bible does. For many years, LDS emphasized the threeness of God. I believe this was done in an attempt to respond to the Trinity doctrine. Most non-Trinitarians believe that the Trinity is modalism (every JW I have spoken too does). In the LDS isolation after their departure for Utah, there was much said in response to those who claimed “God is one.” As LDS have matured I believe we have become less reactive. Many LDS now recognize that God is one and God is three. So I am suggesting that some of the shift in beliefs is a correction from a reactive and less correct position held by the church in exile and isolation.

cont…
 
Some more stuff.

Mormon Fool, I am very much looking forward to reading Millets talk from the Library of Congress Symposium (I wish I had listened as you did).

As BJ pointed out and some may refuse to believe (Which I guess is fine. Who’s to say LDS should be able to explain what we believe, it is so much easier to tell us what we believe and call us “ignorant” for not believing you when you educate us), the binding doctrine of the CoJCoLDS is contained in our canonized scripture. That God was once a man has never been canonized in any scriptural statement. Unlike the defining of the Catholic practice of sealing truths as binding which developed over more than a dozen centuries, Joseph Smith laid the foundation by defining the concept of Common Consent. This has been used to define binding doctrine from the early days of the CoJCoLDS and is still in use today.

It is significantly more likely that Paul was married than that he was not. I get very tired of people suggesting that Paul was not married. I see in Paul’s ideas a parallel to the early CoJCoLDS practice of married men going on missions without their wives. Good or bad we do not do this any longer. But I find this much more consistent with Paul’s words and the history preserved by the Catholic Church, than that Paul was never married.

Were I ever to become convinced that the CoJCoLDS was the production of a man or the devil, I would become Catholic.

I am glad to see some welcoming what they view as a shift toward orthodoxy. I find the position of a Protestant against the CoJCoLDS as extremely weak. I have faith in Christ. I prayed the sinner’s prayer. My life is changed so that I participate with Christ to perform works of Sanctification (these are those post Justification works that are associated with the Protestant view of Imputed Righteousness). Despite the loud and regular protest of our Protestant brothers, I do not see any consistent thread running through Protestant theology that should result in me being unsaved.

And my last little bit of miscellany: I did just baptize my son. It occurred to me (before and after but not during) that as I said, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost …” my view of the Holy Trinity was (and is) quite orthodox. I am a Social Trinitarian not an Augustinian Trinitarian, but I am certain that my Christology is closer to the Catholic position than was the Christology of the Arians whose baptism was once accepted by the Catholic Church (JW baptism is no longer accepted though). If the CoJCoLDS folds up in a few years, my son will hopefully find his way to the Catholic Church just as I will, but his conditional baptism will not be necessary in my eyes.

Charity, TOm
 
BJ Colbert:
Do you wonder why God does not rescue His Catholic Church from the calamity that is befalling it worldwide?
Click to expand...
Catholic Church in a worldwide calamity??? You must not keep up with the news! It is really only in the US and Western Europe that there is a problem. The rest of the world is BURSTING with Catholics. Catholics make up fully 1/6th of the entire world’s population.

And there is only a priest problem in the US and Western Europe. The rest of the world is bursting with priest candidates. In fact, many seminaries in Africa have to turn away hundreds of priest candidates a year because they don’t have enough room for them.
 
40.png
TeriGator:
It appears to me that there is a huge shift going on, and it seems to be fairly successful among the LDS members. I know that the church changed the Book of Mormon since I left Utah, and apparently they are changing a number of other things as well.
Click to expand...
Can you please share exactly what they have changed? As I have mentioned in another post, I have close family who are LDS and I approached them with your quote that the Book of Mormon has been changed and they were not aware. So, I said I would ask you - hopefully you can help me out here.

Thanks!
Karen Anne
 
Thank you for the reference to the talks by Robert Millet. He is one of my favorite authors and I have several of his books. I look forward to reading more.*
 
40.png
TOmNossor:
And my last little bit of miscellany: I did just baptize my son. It occurred to me (before and after but not during) that as I said, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost …” my view of the Holy Trinity was (and is) quite orthodox. I am a Social Trinitarian not an Augustinian Trinitarian, but I am certain that my Christology is closer to the Catholic position than was the Christology of the Arians whose baptism was once accepted by the Catholic Church (JW baptism is no longer accepted though). If the CoJCoLDS folds up in a few years, my son will hopefully find his way to the Catholic Church just as I will, but his conditional baptism will not be necessary in my eyes.

Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
Tom, It’s nice to see you posting again. I agree with you that the LDS view of the Godhead/Trinity is closer to orthodoxy than that of Arianism. That’s just one of the reasons that I protest when people insist LDS are not Christian, yet allow everyone else under the sun to share the title even when their beliefs are much further removed from orthodoxy than LDS beliefs. I also agreee that it is inconsistent that Arians were not required to be re-baptized. Please understand that conditional Catholic baptisms of LDS converts is simply because the Church isn’t sure that LDS baptisms are valid. I have seen no no definitive statement or claim that they are not valid. There’s no harm in a conditional baptism.
 
40.png
TOmNossor:
[Most importantly, I believe that the past members of the CoJCoLDS are responsible for some inappropriate emphasis upon more peculiar aspects of the gospel. I believe this occurred because the members of the church choose to rebel against those “Christians” who they (rightly or wrongly) believed killed the prophet of God. The best example I have for this is the Trinity. God is one and God is three. The BOM demands this at least as much as the Bible does. For many years, LDS emphasized the threeness of God. I believe this was done in an attempt to respond to the Trinity doctrine. Most non-Trinitarians believe that the Trinity is modalism (every JW I have spoken too does). In the LDS isolation after their departure for Utah, there was much said in response to those who claimed “God is one.” As LDS have matured I believe we have become less reactive. Many LDS now recognize that God is one and God is three. So I am suggesting that some of the shift in beliefs is a correction from a reactive and less correct position held by the church in exile and isolation.
Click to expand...
As I stated in an earlier post. I welcome any move in LDS doctrine toward Catholic doctrine. That said, I don’t understand how rejecting the notion that God was once a mortal man can be reconciled with other LDS beliefs like eternal progression and the Father’s physical body. It seems to me that they all go hand in hand. IMO, you’re removing one leg from a three legged stool yet expect the stool to continue standing.

Tom, how does one square the notion that, as Joseph Smith explained, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s”, with the belief that he is eternal, omnipresent, and not created? If God was not “once a man” then why does he have a physical body? It surely seems that he would have to be a resurrected, perfected man. Isn’t that how the concept of eternal progression ties into the nature of God? I’m curious, do you believe God the Father has a physical body? If yes, why does that make sense to you? If no, why do you reject this notion?

Thanks
 
Karen Anne:
Can you please share exactly what they have changed? As I have mentioned in another post, I have close family who are LDS and I approached them with your quote that the Book of Mormon has been changed and they were not aware. So, I said I would ask you - hopefully you can help me out here.

Thanks!
Karen Anne
Click to expand...
Karen, here’s a good site that shows EVERY change. fiber.net/users/drshades/changes.htm

Be aware that the vast majority of the changes were simply grammatical. However, there are some significant doctrinal changes as well(IMO). The most striking is from the 1830 version to the 1837 version in which you can see a shift from an almost modalist view of the Trinity, to one which reflects the later “Godhead” doctrine as it was developed by Joseph Smith (1st Nephi 11:18, 11:21, 11:32, and 13:40).

The other significant change (IMO) occurred in 1981 where 2nd Nephi 30:6 was changed from “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome”. I say this is significant because it was an attempt to ignore 150 years of church teaching that skin color had everything to do with how righteous a person was.

To be fair please see this defense of the changes by Jeff Lindsay:
jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml
I don’t find his explanations convincing but you should really read them to see the other side.
 
40.png
TOmNossor:
As BJ pointed out and some may refuse to believe (Which I guess is fine. Who’s to say LDS should be able to explain what we believe, it is so much easier to tell us what we believe and call us “ignorant” for not believing you when you educate us), the binding doctrine of the CoJCoLDS is contained in our canonized scripture.
Click to expand...
TOm, nice to have you posting again.

So your church has come out with nothing binding since 1978 when they allowed black men into the priesthood? So were I an LDS I would not be bound to believe anything that President Hinckley says because it’s not written in the 4 scriptures?
 
40.png
Tmaque:
Karen, here’s a good site that shows EVERY change. fiber.net/users/drshades/changes.htm

Be aware that the vast majority of the changes were simply grammatical. However, there are some significant doctrinal changes as well(IMO). The most striking is from the 1830 version to the 1837 version in which you can see a shift from an almost modalist view of the Trinity, to one which reflects the later “Godhead” doctrine as it was developed by Joseph Smith (1st Nephi 11:18, 11:21, 11:32, and 13:40).
Click to expand...
You can also find the differences at www.mazeministry.com. No claim on whether this is a “good” site or not, but it does show several changes between the 1830 and today’s version. To me, the most striking is 1Nephi 11:18, which originally calls Mary the mother of God, but later is changed to say that Mary is the mother of the son of God.
 
THank you for all the references about the changing of the Book of Mormon. It seems that this is a point that people use as a backup to arguments against the LDS church.

NOW - can someone tell me if the Catechism of the RCC has EVER changed or has it been the EXACT same from the beginning? I am really curious because this was asked of me by a family member and I did not know what to say. If it has had changes made at ANY point, it seems to me then that Catholics can no longer use the “changing of the Book of Mormon” excuse when arguing against the LDS church.

Thanks in advance!

Karen Anne
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top