Doctrine Changes with Time

[_Dr. Shades]

You'd think that an omnipotent God could get it right the first time.

With the history of the Universe representing one of change, I would think He designed this feature.

So, in your opinion, truth changes? In that case, what's the point of believing in anything, much less Mormonism?

For example, either God was once a man or He wasn't. Doctrine is changing on this issue, but that doesn't change the fact that, again, either God was once a man or He wasn't.

So which is it?

[_Mercury]

You'd think that an omnipotent God could get it right the first time.

With the history of the Universe representing one of change, I would think He designed this feature.

The history of the universe? Yes, change is abundant but on the scale of billions of years. Of the 6000 years of recorded history the universe has not changed much. In the scale of human experience it has changed a great deal.

Symantics.

[_DarkHelmet]

Of course organizations change. I don't fault the LDS church for changing and progressing with time. It's just funny that they claim their doctrines change because of new revelations from God, while everyone else changes doctrine because they are in a state of apostacy.

[_badseed]

Of course organizations change. I don't fault the LDS church for changing and progressing with time. It's just funny that they claim their doctrines change because of new revelations from God, while everyone else changes doctrine because they are in a state of apostacy.

Agree.

In fact the LDS Church is usually behind the curve on social issues because of attempt to be faithful to what has been previously been revealed. Consider polygamy. The Church fought hard to keep it/ hide it bu t finally gave it up. Now most SLC church members wish even the memory of it would go away. The Church was a good 15 years behind the civil rights movement with the 1978 priesthood to all men announcement— mostly because some older GAs (Harold B Lee, ETB) opposed attempts to change it earlier. I personally think there's a good chance that gay marraige will go the same way.


Seems to me like secular/gentile society without the benefit of prophets, seers and revelators keeps beating God's chosen people to the punch change regarding social issues.

[_JAK]

Of course organizations change. I don't fault the LDS church for changing and progressing with time. It's just funny that they claim their doctrines change because of new revelations from God, while everyone else changes doctrine because they are in a state of apostacy.

Agree.

In fact the LDS Church is usually behind the curve on social issues because of attempt to be faithful to what has been previously been revealed. Consider polygamy. The Church fought hard to keep it/ hide it bu t finally gave it up. Now most SLC church members wish even the memory of it would go away. The Church was a good 15 years behind the civil rights movement with the 1978 priesthood to all men announcement— mostly because some older GAs (Harold B Lee, ETB) opposed attempts to change it earlier. I personally think there's a good chance that gay marraige will go the same way.


Seems to me like secular/gentile society without the benefit of prophets, seers and revelators keeps beating God's chosen people to the punch change regarding social issues.

The LDS Church has no corner on being “behind the curve." It’s an inherent characteristic of religious groups and their dogmas.

The obvious reason for this is that religion tends to be committed to a fixed script. As a result, it relies on changing interpretations of those scripts. Doctrinal shift is a result of the fact that the script is unreliable. It requires interpretation. We have today more than 1,000 Christian groups (denominations, cults, sects) as a result of evolving interpretations of fixed script.

As partial compensation for this, we have multiple translations (versions) of the religious scripts. Religious groups can use a variety of translations of the Bible as well.

Since the wide variety of interpretations demonstrate different perspectives on the real meaning, we should expect that religions embrace doctrinal shifts. It is new evidence and information which tends to move doctrines to shift. It is not the other way around. That is religious doctrines are irrelevant to evidence and information which can be established with much objective and critical review of available data.

DarkHelmet stated:
Of course organizations change. I don't fault the LDS church for changing and progressing with time. It's just funny that they claim their doctrines change because of new revelations from God, while everyone else changes doctrine because they are in a state of apostacy.

God claims are not established. They are truth by assertion. As for organizations making God claims, they can claim anything they like and justify any contradiction they please.

Civil rights and their implementation into law are not a result of religion. But when they were embraced, religion was often used and claimed to be the guide.

JAK

[_moksha]

So, in your opinion, truth changes? In that case, what's the point of believing in anything, much less Mormonism?

If change happens then truth has to change with it. It was x light years to some star, now it is x+y. Truth is keeping up with change. As sentient beings our scope of knowledge is continually increasing, but does what was presumed as being true in 2,500 BC still hold true for us now? Some of these truths do and others have fallen by the wayside. Change has occured.

For example, either God was once a man or He wasn't. Doctrine is changing on this issue, but that doesn't change the fact that, again, either God was once a man or He wasn't.

So which is it?

Let's not get boxed in with only these choices, but if we had to be in this scenario, then I would say that our perception of what may be truth has changed. In this instance, you must recognize that speculation has been entered into the record as being ultimate truth. I would say that in our change or progression whe cannot be bound by past speculation or it will skew our search for knowledge as well as meaning.

----


Shatner, eh? Well then Ray, beam me up to that temperate paradise!

.

[_moksha]

Of the 6000 years of recorded history the universe has not changed much. In the scale of human experience it has changed a great deal.

Symantics.

Hey, leave the anti-viral software out of this....


You may be right, but on the other hand entire star systems may have died out or been reborn for the dust of supernovas. Certainly the Universe has seen its share of expansion during that interval.

.

[_bcspace]

On top of that, the LDS Church has designed in fluidity from new insights, exigencies and revelations.

Sure.

But what the change comes down to is that they do not recognize that things have changed but instead shove the regrettable doctrine into the closet and deny it ever was doctrine. That is the problem, and a big one.

I see certain ignorant or unbelieving apologists doing this, but I've never been shown an example of the Church doing this.

[_Mercury]

Of the 6000 years of recorded history the universe has not changed much. In the scale of human experience it has changed a great deal.

Symantics.

Hey, leave the anti-viral software out of this....


You may be right, but on the other hand entire star systems may have died out or been reborn for the dust of supernovas. Certainly the Universe has seen its share of expansion during that interval.

.

Trivial things. Its as natural as watching the grass grow. given the number of stars in the universe and the physics behind it there are many stars going through their processes.

I'd say more but it would just be more unrelated scientific data to the OP.

[_JAK]

Mercury stated:
I'd say more but it would just be more unrelated scientific data to the OP.

It would be related. Why does doctrine change with time?

It changes as research exposes new and greater understanding of the universe. “Doctrine” relies on truth by assertion. The particulars of related scientific data tend to render doctrines irrelevant and wrong. It is to underestimate the importance of the very thing you mention to suggest that it’s “unrelated scientific data.”

It’s related.

Shades raises good interrogatives:
So, in your opinion, truth changes? In that case, what's the point of believing in anything, much less Mormonism?

His point (it would seem) is not that “truth changes,” but rather that perceptions are continually updated by new and expanded discovery. Science reaches tentative conclusions. It is continuously in search of additional information which will confirm or modify those tentative conclusions.

As for “…truth has to change,” consider how that might address different things or address things differently. Science recognizes that in the 4.5 billion year history of this single planet, the planet has undergone many changes. Some occurred in a virtual moment of time while others occurred over long periods of time.

Without question, human perceptions of what IS have changed. Each time we humans gain more information and insight, we are able to modify or adjust our notions of what is true, what is authentic, what is correct.

Shades stated:
For example, either God was once a man or He wasn't. Doctrine is changing on this issue, but that doesn't change the fact that, again, either God was once a man or He wasn't.

The highlight is to recognize that doctrine is changing on a wide variety of points and issues throughout the many religious claims made by the various groups which employ truth by assertion.

Such claims are unreliable at nearly any level. Of course if a religious claim is based entirely on consensus science, then it’s hardly a religious claim.

JAK