Is church doctrine evolving?

Post by **_Runtu** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:19 pm

Someone said in another thread that Joseph Smith changed his mind about certain things as his understanding progressed and he understood more. Thus, the conflict between the 2-personed Godhead of the Lectures on Faith and the 3-personed one of section 130.

It seems to me that such doctrinal evolution would be a positive thing, although I think all of us have heard the statement "Policies change, but doctrines don't" many times. But I thought I'd throw this out: is church doctrine evolving with time? Some people believe that certain "embarrassing" doctrines have been downplayed or blurred, but do you see continuing doctrinal change? And if so, is this a good thing?

Post by **_The Nehor** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:23 pm

The only way doctrine can remain impure is to cut off the flow of revelation. Joseph Smith's question of, "How long can rolling waters remain impure?" was designed to teach this. The dogmatic and those who will not seek revelation will eventually stagnate.

Post by **_Runtu** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:30 pm

The Nehor wrote:The only way doctrine can remain impure is to cut off the flow of revelation. Joseph Smith's question of, "How long can rolling waters remain impure?" was designed to teach this. The dogmatic and those who will not seek revelation will eventually stagnate.

That assumes that the doctrine was pure to begin with.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:45 pm

Runtu wrote:
The Nehor wrote:The only way doctrine can remain impure is to cut off the flow of revelation. Joseph Smith's question of, "How long can rolling waters remain impure?" was designed to teach this. The dogmatic and those who will not seek revelation will eventually stagnate.

That assumes that the doctrine was pure to begin with.

No, not really. In fact, the doctrine should become purer with time and purer as more revelation comes. In my own life my understanding of God is VASTLY different than it was 10 or even 5 years ago. The Church hasn't changed what it's teaching. I've changed. Joseph Smith's rough stone rolling metaphor is correct. As revelation comes false suppositions and inferences I've drawn are knocked down and replaced with better ones which are often in turn knocked down themselves.

Post by **_The Dude** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:12 pm

The Nehor wrote:As revelation comes false suppositions and inferences I've drawn are knocked down and replaced with better ones which are often in turn knocked down themselves.

I understand that "false suppositions and inferences" from men can be knocked down by actual revelations, but how would one revelation be knocked down by another one -- "often in turn knocked down themselves." Does God talk or not? And if he speaks why would he have to go back and correct himself? Did people screw up the revelation or did God get it wrong the first time?

Either way, there seems to be reason to question everything they tell you. Skepticism should operate in Mormonism as much as it does in business, science, or politics.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:17 pm

The Dude wrote:
The Nehor wrote:As revelation comes false suppositions and inferences I've drawn are knocked down and replaced with better ones which are often in turn knocked down themselves.

I understand that "false suppositions and inferences" from men can be knocked down by actual revelations, but how would one revelation be knocked down by another one -- "often in turn knocked down themselves." Does God talk or not? And if he speaks why would he have to go back and correct himself? Did people screw up the revelation or did God get it wrong the first time?

Either way, there seems to be reason to question everything they tell you. Skepticism should operate in Mormonism as much as it does in business, science, or politics.

I was unclear. The suppositions and inferences that get knocked out are my interpretation and application of what I've been taught by God not the revelation itself. Then new revelation either discredits or expands on what I'd previously learned and new conclusions come to in turn be removed or expanded on. The revelation is pure. The human mind has to sort out what it contained and apply it. This is also why I'm leery of some people's 'revelations'. Even if I believe they had a real experience they often start tacking on their own conclusions and guesses as to why it happened.

Post by **_harmony** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:05 am

The Nehor wrote:I was unclear. The suppositions and inferences that get knocked out are my interpretation and application of what I've been taught by God not the revelation itself. Then new revelation either discredits or expands on what I'd previously learned and new conclusions come to in turn be removed or expanded on. The revelation is pure. The human mind has to sort out what it contained and apply it. This is also why I'm leery of some people's 'revelations'. Even if I believe they had a real experience they often start tacking on their own conclusions and guesses as to why it happened.

That is why I am leery of everyone else's revelations. Including prophets', apostles', and assorted other church leaders'. I have yet to see any revelation that is more appropriate for me than my own. And because I refuse to allow anyone else to tell me what is best for me, I am called apostate by some, and wise by others. Go figure.

_Nephi · Post by **_Nephi** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:08 am

harmony wrote:That is why I am leery of everyone else's revelations. Including prophets', apostles', and assorted other church leaders'. I have yet to see any revelation that is more appropriate for me than my own. And because I refuse to allow anyone else to tell me what is best for me, I am called apostate by some, and wise by others. Go figure.

OMG, I love you... I have argued this many times. The prophet and church authorities receive revelation for themselves and that which they govern, but the DO NOT receive it for others. God speaks to us about our own revelations.

Post by **_The Dude** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:27 am

What a bunch of freekin' apostates.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 5:24 am

harmony wrote:
The Nehor wrote:I was unclear. The suppositions and inferences that get knocked out are my interpretation and application of what I've been taught by God not the revelation itself. Then new revelation either discredits or expands on what I'd previously learned and new conclusions come to in turn be removed or expanded on. The revelation is pure. The human mind has to sort out what it contained and apply it. This is also why I'm leery of some people's 'revelations'. Even if I believe they had a real experience they often start tacking on their own conclusions and guesses as to why it happened.

That is why I am leery of everyone else's revelations. Including prophets', apostles', and assorted other church leaders'. I have yet to see any revelation that is more appropriate for me than my own. And because I refuse to allow anyone else to tell me what is best for me, I am called apostate by some, and wise by others. Go figure.

When leaders share with me instruction I generally accept it. When they start telling me why it is important for me to do such-and-such I take it with a shaker of salt. When they declare direct doctrine I listen for confirmation from the Spirit. When they wander off with the ramifications of that doctrine and what it means and how it relates to everything else they can very easily be wrong. When they start telling stories or reading poetry I fall asleep :)