Mormon shift toward more traditional Christianity?

[Tmaque]

Karen Anne:

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

Karen, comparing the Catechism to the BOM is like comparing apples and oranges. One book is man’s (actually many men) humble attempt to understand and explain God’s will for us, based on the Bible and the tradition of the Church. The other is supposed to be God’s direct word to us. So, the CCC is man’s word, but the BOM is supposedly God’s word. A more apt analogy would be to ask, has the Catholic church ever attempted to change the Bible in the same manner as the LDS Church has changed the Book of Mormon? The answer is unequivocally, NO.

Since your family member sees no problem with altering sacred scripture I have a question for you to pose to them. If the LDS Church, it’s doctrines and even it’s scriptures have significantly changed then what exactly was restored? Today’s LDS Church simply does not hold the same doctrines as it did 150 years ago. One must conclude then that the “restored Gospel” was incomplete or inaccurate and only now is correct. Or, that the Church has evolved away from the “restored Gospel”, in which case, what was the point of restoring it in the first place? If doctrinal development is ok then there should have been no need for a restoration at all.

Let me leave you with a quote from Orson Pratt, one of the early LDS apostles ordained by Joseph Smith himself:

It is to be expected that when the angel restores the gospel it will be restored in fullness and in the most perfect simplicity and plainness so that every point of the doctrine of Christ shall be clearly revealed and expressed in such language that no two persons could understand it differently…nothing else can be an infallible standard of the Christian religion; nothing else can reclaim them from divisions and strifes; nothing else will give certainty and stability so necessary to the happiness and salvation of man; and nothing else could be expected in the revelation of the gospel by an angel. Such a revelation is the Book of Mormon; the most infallible certainty characterizes every ordinance and every doctrinal point revealed in that book. In it there is no ambiguity** no room for controversy** no doctrine so imperfectly expressed that two persons would draw two different conclusions therefrom… (Orson Pratt’s Works, Vol 2, “Important Works in Mormon History”, Grandin Book Co, 1990, p. 83; This can also be found in Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Apostle Orson Pratt, 1851, No. 6, page 83)

It seems that Mr Pratt didn’t believe in doctrinal development and he was obviously wrong about the Book of Mormon. I’m sure the reply will be: “Well, it was only his opinion. He was not speaking as an inspired apostle at the time.” My my, are there any early LDS that did not speak erroneous doctrines??

 

[tkdnick]

Karen Anne:

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.

Tmaque already gave a good answer. I just thought I would throw my two cents in…

Yes, the Catechism has had some changes. What those changes are I do not know. I know the original version came out in 1994 in French, and was then translated into several other languages. When the French version was translated into Latin, that Latin became the official version of The Church, and then was translated into several languages as the second edition.

The CCC and the BoM are held to two completely different standards. The BoM is considered the word of God. The CCC is not. The two are not equal, and thus cannot be compared accurately.

 

[ex-mormon]

Karen Anne:

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

Karen Anne,

Read these two summations of the LDS Articles of faith as posted on their FAIR website:

The place of sacred scripture is addressed in the eighth article: Latter-day Saints “believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly”; they also “believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God” (cf. Ezek. 37:16; John 10:16; 2 Tim. 3:16).

The comparison of the Catechism and BOM would not make sense according to the LDS “Articles of Faith”. LDS claim that the BOM is comparable to the Bible with this one caveat, that the BOM is the word of God and translated correctly, where as the Bible is not given the same standard. Tmaque pointed out that the Catechism is “man’s (actually many men) humble attempt to understand and explain God’s will for us, based on the Bible and the tradition of the Church.” I don’t believe the LDS have anything like the Catechism with regards to their ninth article:

The ninth article states that the restored gospel is not bound up in a closed set of books, but rather declares the principle of continuing revelation, and therefore an open canon. Latter-day Saints affirm belief in all past and present revelation, and they look forward to many future revelations (cf. Amos 3:7; D&C 76:7).

My question would be to the LDS posters, does this give the Mormon Church the latitude they need to ignore previous teachings or revelations given by early Prophets, Apostles, and Various leaders, or does it bind them to recognize the earlier teachings of what was stated or taught?

ex-mo

To look at my source please see ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=19

 

[Tmaque]

ex-mormon:

My question would be to the LDS posters, does this give the Mormon Church the latitude they need to ignore previous teachings or revelations given by early Prophets, Apostles, and Various leaders, or does it bind them to recognize the earlier teachings of what was stated or taught?

Ex-mo,
This is really an excellent question. The main reason I left the LDS Church is because I believed the latter rather than the former. At first I refused to believe that God’s true church would allow this to happen, then I became very hopeless and disillusioned. I came to the conclusion that if there is a God at all(and I doubted it) he isn’t directing the affairs of any church. I now believe that God may continue to “reveal” his will to man. In other words, mankind may come to a better understanding of God’s will over time. However, I believe that the new understandings or developments must not directly contradict the previous understandings. They must only complement or broaden our grasp of earlier doctrine.

I must admit that when it comes to the continuity of doctrine, I hold the LDS Church to a higher standard than I do the Catholic Church. This is because of the relatively short time frame the LDS Church has existed, and the fact that the LDS Church has always claimed it is led by a prophet, seer and revelator. So, in essence, it has a link to the divine. In my mind that means there should less be change and less error, not more. What I see(IMO) is more change than the Catholic developments, and more error(in the BOM) than the Bible.

As I said earlier, the doctrinal change issue was my primary reason for abandoning the LDS faith, although it was not my reason for becoming Catholic. On the contrary, I became Catholic in spite of the doctrinal developments.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

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?

I do in fact believe that God has a body of flesh and bones. I am not radically concerned with this, but I do embrace it as truth. To declare that God does not in fact have a body of flesh and bones would be a shift of greater magnitude than would disavowing God’s previous manhood. My observation is that such shifts have generally not been made and certainly have not been made since the first few decades of the church. That being said there is no infallibility doctrine in the CoJCoLDS and even scripture is subject to “the mistakes of men.”

It is quite arguable that the concept of God having a body of flesh and bones is linked to the concept of God being once a man, but it is not necessary. The presence of God having a body of flesh and bones in LDS scripture elevates this far beyond the teachings associated with God being once a man. LDS believe that God does have a body of flesh and bones, but they do not suggest that He is limited by it as we are by ours (and of course it is incorruptible). In truth LDS just suggest that God has chosen to have a body of flesh and bones. Our concept of God’s omnipotence demands in my mind that God could go without His body if He chose. Is there any reason that the Catholic concept of God’s omnipotence would require God to not be able to have a body of flesh and bones?

Man was created in the image of God. LDS embrace this more literally than do other Christians.

Also, I really do not know what the answer to this is. I know that Patrick Holding has taken a position different from most Evangelical Christians, but honestly I cannot remember what he holds to or what ECs hold to or what Catholics believe. Does Jesus Christ have a body of flesh and bones?

It seems that God the Father was viewed in a far more physical way by the Jews and the early church. His lack of embodiment seems to be a later development within the early church (if you disagree, I am pretty sure I can defend this).

I guess, I am saying that I am not overly concerned with what God looks like. His interaction with me has never involved a physical manifestation of His person/personage. I do not see God’s physical body being necessarily linked to His postulated previous manhood. D&C 20:17 (which is binding LDS doctrine) suggests to me that God was never equivalent to the men I see in this world, so I say that whatever Lorenzo Snow’s couplet means it does not mean that God was once merely a man. BTW, the Lorenzo Snow couplet has been mentioned in my ward 2x in the last 5+ years. One time it was pointed out that Jesus Christ was a man and is God so whatever the couplet means this is true. The other time D&C 20:17 was specifically mentioned and the difference between scripture accepted by common consent and words spoken by prophets was highlighted. Also that we do not know what truths are associated with the first part of the couplet.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:
I must admit that when it comes to the continuity of doctrine, I hold the LDSChurch to a higher standard than I do the Catholic Church. This is because of the relatively short time frame the LDSChurch has existed, and the fact that the LDSChurch has always claimed it is led by a prophet, seer and revelator. So, in essence, it has a link to the divine. In my mind that means there should less be change and less error, not more. What I see(IMO) is more change than the Catholic developments, and more error(in the BOM) than the Bible…On the contrary, I became Catholic in spite of the doctrinal developments.
I am happy to see this statement. I totally disagree with you and I will defend my position shortly, but I want to say that your ideas are not ridiculous in my book. And you have demonstrated something that I have regularly theorized in a more clear way than I have ever seen it demonstrated. You ceased to be a LDS and became a Catholic embracing an underlying assumption that is radically different from my assumptions. Thus we can both look at the same data and come to completely different conclusions. Your scale is calibrated very differently than is mine.

I expect consistency from the Catholic Church and referred to developments that I felt shattered the concept of “preserving tradition” as “fatal flaws.” Before reading Newman and deciding that his ideas were acceptable (it is interesting to me that Orestes Brownson found Newman so unacceptable and if I thought like him I would consider Catholicism fatally flawed), I saw a number of doctrinal changes that did not meet my expectation for the preservation of tradition. I still think that the majority of Catholics I interact with embrace a concept of preserved tradition that is not historically demonstratable. In my mind the Catholic Church has been very clear that neither the Pope nor the councils receive supernatural public revelation. The deposit of faith was completely delivered by Christ and the Apostles and Catholics can only hope the Holy Spirit will guide them to better understand what that deposit was. Any change evident in history shakes the foundation of this idea in my mind.

The CoJCoLDS on the other hand embraces supernatural public revelation. In addition to this we have no concept of infallibility and from the beginning have explained that the prophet would not always act as the prophet. In addition to this we do not embrace inerrant scriptures either. This may be too fluid for the minds of many Catholics, but it is what it is. So Peter introduced something new and different when he had a vision and extended the gospel to the gentiles. This is the way God interacts with His church. Truth does not change, but new public revelation can illuminate truths no where evident in our historical deposits of faith.

What I am saying here is that I expect the Catholic Church to “preserve tradition.” I expect the CoJCoLDS do present revelation and guide the church through the living prophet of God.

An example is the following. As a LDS I believe it is possible that woman may one day receive the priesthood. I neither advocate for this nor against it, but I believe it could happen and the CoJCoLDS would still be the CoJCoLDS. If the Catholic Church gives the priesthood to woman it will be a “fatal flaw.” This is irreformable and were it to be changed, the Catholic Church would not be the church that preserves tradition or has a Pope with the gift of infallibility.

Also in direct response to your reason for holding the CoJCoLDS to greater consistency than you hold the Catholic Church, due to time, I would suggest that over the first 300 (perhaps 400) years after the death of Christ the church made more radical changes (definitions) than it would for the next 1600. Were I Catholic I would see that the mortal ministry of Christ took a long time to define and understand even for men with divine authority. As a LDS I see the restoration as something that is taking a period of time to define and understand even for men who have supernatural public revelation given from heaven.

Charity, TOm

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Tom,

I see what you are saying about the early Church how a lot of stuff happened, but that was due to many reasons, ranging from form of Government to the simple fact that Christianity was a “new thing”.

JS didnt come up with everything on his own in terms of education, he like all the rest of the world were in debt to those who came before him, for example the ones who gave him the very Bible he quotes from in his revelation. And if Im not mistaking he went and called a few denominations BS, so that right there says he at least knew the basics of what they had to say.
What Im trying to get at is that a core part of Christianity has always existed through Protestantism, JS didnt invent the wheel here, a lot of what he knew about God, Bible, Jews, Salvation, etc was passed on to him by protestants.

 

[mormon_fool]

Here is my response to some issues brought up on this thread:

On the Snow Couplet – BJ, TOmN, and GBH have all done a good job explaining what its status is as a teaching in the LDS church is/was. I verified in a search of church materials that the couplet has not been quoted in public discourse since 1978. When I did get hits on it on LDS-themed infobases, the speakers were mostly elaborating on the latter part of the couplet re: eternal progression rather than speculating about God’s past. No doubt many have interpreted the first part of the couplet as well as portions of the King Follett sermon with varied results, but these all fall short of being in church canon or current teaching manuals.

On changes in the Book of Mormon – Kudos to Tmaque for providing links to both sides of the issue and KarenAnne’s desire to become informed before launching into a full-fledged argument with her mormon relatives. I still hold that no real doctrinal point the BOM makes is affected, just that it has been edited for clarity and grammar (and frequently to more faithfully represent the original translation manuscripts). Critics can still attempt to make their case that the BOM reads modalistically or racially from the current text. Mormons can still read the older editions and reconcile them with current doctrinal understanding. Everybody is happy.

On Pratt’s views – I am going to have to suggest that using Orson Pratt’s quote to show that he was against doctrinal development or changes in the Book of Mormon is awkward. Pratt lived through all doctrinal developments from the early 1830’s onward and frequently did a good job arguing for them. Pratt himself was the main editor responsible for textual changes in the 1849 and 1879 editions of the BOM. In the larger context of the quote above, I read Pratt as supportive of continuing revelation in general to resolve disputes created by ambiguities in the Bible. When he gets specific about the Book of Mormon it is clear that he is only talking about the doctrines of Christ and the gospel that are found in it. As an example of how clear the Book of Mormon is so plain about central and fundamental doctrine, Pratt cites a lengthy excerpt from the BOM and then asks how anyone could dispute from it what the proper mode of baptism is. I doubt Pratt is talking about doctrinal minutia or doctrines not elaborated on in the Book of Mormon in his quote.

On what got restored – In one sense I think the restoration is a work in progress. I think we can point to some milestones. For example the restored church was up and running on April 6, 1830. Before that the Book of Mormon recovered a basic knowledge of the more centralized teachings of Christ and his doctrines. A major restoration was the priesthood authority and the right of a prophet/apostle figure to receive continuing revelation for the church.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Catholic Dude:

Tom,

I see what you are saying about the early Church how a lot of stuff happened, but that was due to many reasons, ranging from form of Government to the simple fact that Christianity was a “new thing”.

JS didnt come up with everything on his own in terms of education, he like all the rest of the world were in debt to those who came before him, for example the ones who gave him the very Bible he quotes from in his revelation. And if Im not mistaking he went and called a few denominations BS, so that right there says he at least knew the basics of what they had to say.
What Im trying to get at is that a core part of Christianity has always existed through Protestantism, JS didnt invent the wheel here, a lot of what he knew about God, Bible, Jews, Salvation, etc was passed on to him by protestants.

These are some nice points CD. No one is claiming that Joseph Smith grew up in a vacumn, no doubt in my mind God used Joseph Smith’s environment to help train him to be a prophet. The question is if Joseph Smith is merely a product of his environment, or did he through divine aid transcend his environment? The conference webcasts that I posted earlier and that should be up tomorrow evening has both mormon and non-mormon speakers discussing that very issue.

One of the speakers in particular is Jan Shipps, who is widely recognized as the #1 non-mormon expert on mormonism. She wrote a book on how mormonism is a new tradition. For her, Mormonism is to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism. For all the flack we get about looking like protestants, you should hear some of the EV speakers in the conference address how different and new mormonism is. Continuing revelation and priesthood authority is very much against protestant philosophy.

You could substitute Jesus in his mortal ministry to some effect in your observations. He knew and quoted from Judaism’s scriptures, he knew the pharisees and saducees were full of BS on some issues, and core parts of Christianity were already in the Jewish tradition. Despite these environmental influences Jesus did not have need of any man to teach him.

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

One of the speakers in particular is Jan Shipps, who is widely recognized as the #1 non-mormon expert on mormonism. She wrote a book on how mormonism is a new tradition. For her, Mormonism is to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism. For all the flack we get about looking like protestants, you should hear some of the EV speakers in the conference address how different and new mormonism is. Continuing revelation and priesthood authority is very much against protestant philosophy.

Sounds like this lady isn’t a “religious” person. Anyone who calls a religion a tradition or a philosophy is missing the point.

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

On changes in the Book of Mormon – Kudos to Tmaque for providing links to both sides of the issue and KarenAnne’s desire to become informed before launching into a full-fledged argument with her mormon relatives. I still hold that no real doctrinal point the BOM makes is affected, just that it has been edited for clarity and grammar (and frequently to more faithfully represent the original translation manuscripts). Critics can still attempt to make their case that the BOM reads modalistically or racially from the current text. Mormons can still read the older editions and reconcile them with current doctrinal understanding. Everybody is happy.

How can you say all the changes are minor in light of these changes? These are significant changes.

1st Nephi 11:18, 11:21, 11:32, and 13:40.

 

[tkdnick]

Tmaque:

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.

Just skimmed through this. I don’t find the explanations convincing either.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

Sounds like this lady isn’t a “religious” person. Anyone who calls a religion a tradition or a philosophy is missing the point.

When I read her latest book **Sojourner in the Promised Land: Forty Years Among the Mormons, **I got the impression that she was very devoted to her Methodist faith. I think scholars have more formal ways of defining terms than we do. Philosophy was my term, BTW. She lays out her thesis in the classic **Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition. **I highly recommend her books and speech at the Library of Congress towards the end of the last session.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

How can you say all the changes are minor in light of these changes? These are significant changes.

1st Nephi 11:18, 11:21, 11:32, and 13:40.

You might have to help me here. Why are these changes significant in your point of view?

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

You might have to help me here. Why are these changes significant in your point of view?

There’s a significant difference between calling Jesus the Eternal Father and the son of the Eternal Father. That’s a big difference in view of the Godhead. Calling Jesus the Eternal Father means one of two things - either 1)a modalistic view of the Godhead, or 2)a more unified view of the Godhead than most LDS have now.

Calling Mary the mother of God or the mother of the son of God holds a certain significance as well. Denying that Mary is the mother of God (by changing the verse), denies her importance in salvation history.

Or at least that’s one Catholic’s perspective…

 

[ex-mormon]

Catholic Dude:

JS didnt come up with everything on his own in terms of education, he like all the rest of the world were in debt to those who came before him, for example the ones who gave him the very Bible he quotes from in his revelation. And if Im not mistaking he went and called a few denominations BS, so that right there says he at least knew the basics of what they had to say.

What Im trying to get at is that a core part of Christianity has always existed through Protestantism, JS didnt invent the wheel here, a lot of what he knew about God, Bible, Jews, Salvation, etc was passed on to him by protestants.

C Dude,

I agree that what Joseph Smith created was influenced greatly by his protestant roots. JS uses the Kings James Version Bible as his Biblical standard for his church; KJV is riddled with translation errors and is modeled after the protestant bible with regards to the removal of seven books from the Old Testament. If in fact JS works were inspired by God, then why would he fall prey to the whims of Martin Luther? Luther removed from the bible what he did not see fit as inspired from God. The Epistle of St. James was almost removed by Luther and referred to as the Epistle of Straw. The Bible was assembled and translated by the Catholic Church and has been abused by all others, this is a far cry from divine revelation from our Lord.

Originally Posted by mormon fool

On what got restored – In one sense I think the restoration is a work in progress. I think we can point to some milestones. For example the restored church was up and running on April 6, 1830. Before that the Book of Mormon recovered a basic knowledge of the more centralized teachings of Christ and his doctrines. A major restoration was the priesthood authority and **the right of a prophet/apostle figure to receive continuing revelation for the church.
**
This sounds too much like the argument used about the Constitution of the United States, that it is a living and breathing document and subject to change that fits a modern society that could not possibly have been envisioned by the founders. This argument is based on the concept that the BOM is the correctly translated work of God and restoration of the ancient church was needed. If the apostolic succession was lost after the last direct apostle of Christ died and priesthood authority died also, what authority does the layperson of the LDS church have with regards to the priesthood? Would it only make sense that the modern prophet and his apostles hold these keys and no one else?

I will ask the question again from my last post;

The ninth article states that the restored gospel is not bound up in a closed set of books, but rather declares the principle of continuing revelation, and therefore an open canon. Latter-day Saints affirm belief in all past and present revelation, and they look forward to many future revelations (cf. Amos 3:7; D&C 76:7).

My question would be to the LDS posters, does this give the Mormon Church the latitude they need to ignore previous teachings or revelations given by early Prophets, Apostles, and Various leaders, or does it bind them to recognize the earlier teachings of what was stated or taught?

ex-mo

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

There’s a significant difference between calling Jesus the Eternal Father and the son of the Eternal Father. That’s a big difference in view of the Godhead. Calling Jesus the Eternal Father means one of two things - either 1)a modalistic view of the Godhead, or 2)a more unified view of the Godhead than most LDS have now.

Calling Mary the mother of God or the mother of the son of God holds a certain significance as well. Denying that Mary is the mother of God (by changing the verse), denies her importance in salvation history.

Or at least that’s one Catholic’s perspective…

Thanks this helps me see what you are concerned about. First I don’t see how the change denies Mary is the mother of God. She is. Verse 16 (and v. 26) clearly identifies the being that is envisioned as “God”:

“Knowest thou the condescension of God?”

Joseph Smith left many passages that refer to Jesus as “The Everlasting God”, or “God”, or “The Eternal Father” in tact. There are still plenty of passages that give those titles to Jesus’ Father. There are passages in both the 1830 and 1981 editions that clearly distinguish between beings. The overall playing field looks the same today as it did in 1830. There would have had to been a much more systematic change in the Book of Mormon on this (non) issue to prove that it has been manipulated to change the doctrine it expouses.

 

[ex-mormon]

mormon fool:

Joseph Smith left many passages that refer to Jesus as “The Everlasting God”, or “God”, or “The Eternal Father” in tact. There are still plenty of passages that give those titles to Jesus’ Father. There are passages in both the 1830 and 1981 editions that clearly distinguish between beings. The overall playing field looks the same today as it did in 1830. There would have had to been a much more systematic change in the Book of Mormon on this (non) issue to prove that it has been manipulated to change the doctrine it expouses.

Fool,

Can you make the same argument with regard to the Book of Commandments vs the Doctorine and Covenants?

ex-mo

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

Joseph Smith left many passages that refer to Jesus as “The Everlasting God”, or “God”, or “The Eternal Father” in tact. There are still plenty of passages that give those titles to Jesus’ Father. There are passages in both the 1830 and 1981 editions that clearly distinguish between beings. The overall playing field looks the same today as it did in 1830.

Then why change any of them?

 

[mormon_fool]

ex-mormon:

This sounds too much like the argument used about the Constitution of the United States, that it is a living and breathing document and subject to change that fits a modern society that could not possibly have been envisioned by the founders

I like this insightful comparison. It is probably why the founders allowed for amendments to the constitution. So the country’s “canon” could grow in response to the needs and accumulated wisdom of the people.