Jason Bourne wrote:The Godhead? Changed.
Most Mormon would explain this as line upon line and precept on precept.
---Well of course they would - we were all programmed to think of just that thought-terminating cliché whenever Big Brother changed "the eternal truth", weren't we?
I think some of the progression about the doctrine of God was reasonable and even understandable.
---Well it very well might be, but my claim wasn't that the changes have been "unreasonable" or "incomprehensible" - only that these doctrines have changed.
Baptism? Changed.
How so?
---For decades, baptism played a different role in Mormon theology and worship than it does now. An early member could have been baptized half a dozen times or more. Just as one example, consider how many Mormons submitted to re-baptism, as a sign of re-dedication, during the so-called "Mormon Reformation" period. Nowadays, however, the Mormon church does not permit re-baptism except in case where the person's been kicked out of the church.
Not from what I read. Baptism seemed fairly essential and crucial right from the get go. The only re-baptims I am aware of was during the "reformation" period in the 1850's. If there are other documentations of re-baptism before or after that feel free to enlighten me.
---I didn't say they weren't "crucial" from the get-go. I said that baptism was conceived of quite differently in the early days of the church (it was "crucial" for different reasons). It was also practiced differently.
There is abundant documentation of many re-baptisms, starting from Smith and Cowdery's first baptisms. My old institute teacher Ken Godfrey in class once went so far as to show once that a member in good standing could have been baptized in the Mormon church NINE times. Anyway, there are loads of articles around about this, but to be honest, you don't even need to look them up if you only concede the Mormon Reformation baptisms, because those alone demonstrate my point: that the role of baptism in Mormon theology and practice has changed - whereas now baptism is a one-time saving ordinance and church admittance procedure, for decades after the founding of the church it could also be used as a simple sign of rededication, rather like the sacrament is viewed now.
Blacks? Changed.
Personally I think this was a mistake based in tradition and prejudice that was perpetuated by the same.
---It really doesn't matter what you or I "think" was the root of the problem. The point is that LDS doctrine on blacks changed. And by the way, it was the First Presidency itself which used the word "doctrine" for years.
I am not aware of anyone ever calling this a doctrine and I am aware that David O. McKay called it a policy. But I agree this one is troublesome as well. If an error why did God allow it to continue for so long. One argument that I don't buy is that the people were not ready for it. But I do not agree with that. If GOd could push polygamy on a fairly prudent society he could have told them to shape up regarding the black issue. The only other answer is God really did say don't do it till I say so then in 1978 he said so.
---Policy or doctrine, I think the only point here is
that it changed.But just to respond to your other points, think of it this way. What does it say about a church, that it would keep in place a mere "policy" for well over a century, the effects of which were to
marginalize and stigmatize your fellow human beings solely because of their ancestry? You keep in place for decades a mere POLICY which does that? A "policy" which prohibits those of African ancestry from marrying in the temple? From giving blessings?
That is NO different than the "policy" of Jim Crow laws. So the "it was only a 'policy' route" doesn't make the church look any better - only worse. And by the way, if in fact it was merely a "policy", it is quite difficult to understand why a "revelation" would be necessary to overturn it. Hm...!
So, what is the situation if it was a "doctrine"? The situation is that then it WAS official LDS church doctrine that those of African ancestry were, as Joseph Fielding Smith said, a "cursed", "inferior race", that they were "the seed of Cain", that they weren't valiant in some Scientology-like galactic battle a zillion years ago, somewhere in outer space, ad nauseam. (By the way, I can dig up some old references to it as "doctrine" tomorrow if you want, but I'm not sure it makes any difference, for the reasons I suggested).
Jason - this is all nonsense. I bet you know it deep down. The "policy vs. doctrine" debate is actually a smokescreen - the truth is that either way, the church looks ludicrous, rotten, and thoroughly synthetic. The only way the Mormon legacy of reifying idiotic 19th century racial prejudices as its "doctrines" or "policies" could look worse, is if the church still refused to this day to apologize for this legacy. Oh wait - it hasn't yet, has it?
And I doubt it ever will, because to do so would get people wondering about all those claims to "revelation from God", "being steered by Jesus", etc., wouldn't it? This would undermine the present leaders's authority claims, wouldn't it?
Who the Lamanites are? Changed.
How so?
---For one thing, they've gone from being "the blood ancestors of the American Indians", to "not necessarily being that" at all.
Other than the FARMs people I am not sure of who is saying this.
---For one thing, when Avraham Gileadi, Toscano, etc., said things the church leaders didn't like, they excommunicated them. When Jeff Nielsen wrote a letter to the editor in support of gay marriage a few years ago, the church FIRED him as a BYU professor. So let's not pretend that FARMS spin doctors don't have a green light from "the brethren" to spout this stuff. Of course they do. We all know it would take one twelve second phone call from Oaks to get them to shut this nonsense down - and very obviously, no such phone call has ever been made. On the contrary - Oaks and others sometimes go to symposia with the FARMS guys, giving speeches with them, and even using some of their unique "research" in defending the church and preparing certain talks.
And if we needed any more proof of this change re: "the Lamanites" than common sense affords us, the ever-softening language in the Book of Mormon introductions should be enough to tip us off that this just where the church is heading. And how can they not head there, Jason?
Not even church apologists can spin away 10,000 negative DNA tests, can they? The truth is that it is over for this pillar of LDS doctrine. I would be shocked if you ever heard again from the GC pulpit that today's Native Americans are the blood descendants of Lehi. The Mormon past is being erased, out of necessity. Once a claim becomes unbelievable, it simply has to go into the "we don't know too much about that"/"not necessary for our salvation"/"let's put that on the shelf" file. It just ceases to exist as a doctrine...and becomes "something we don't really talk about anymore". And you're watching it happen right before your eyes. Compare how many references in this last conference there were to the NA's being the blood descendants of Lehi, versus a General Conference 40, 45 years ago.
Who can give blessings? Changed.
I am not clear on this one either. How so?
---The black convert Elijah Abel was given the priesthood by Joseph Smith. Later, those of African descent were prohibited from having the priesthood. Moreover, in the early days, women were allowed to participate in the laying on of hands. This is now discouraged.
Agreed on the black issue. On the women laying on hand I think this was limited to a few instances and was never practiced widely other than for temple work as it still is.
---Women sometimes participated in, or even gave, blessings by the laying on of hands in the early days of the church. Church leaders authorized this. Now they don't.
The "plan of salvation"? Changed.
I don't think so.
---Well, I've got a little homework assignment for you, then. Why not go research "the plan of salvation" as it existed in Mormon theology in May, 1830? And then we'll compare it to the story as it exists now.
I have no problem with God laying out the details of this in a relative short period of time. D&C 76 was given fairly early in LDS theology and is really the basis of the LDS doctrine on the plan of salvation.