drumdude, I realize that there are years of study for Protestant of Catholic theologians. They have to get some grasp of the evolution of thinking and the multiple various paths that have taken over some two thousand years. Just think of what a Herculean task it is to take the Bible with its complexity and then the centuries of church history and from that complex tangle render out something as odd as five solas (or anything close to stable doctrine). No, LDS apostles have no need for such tasks. Why would they, what point would it serve?
I am still in the dark about significant doctrinal changes in the last 160 years.
There is variety and change in Catholic and Protestant thinking. In comparison LDS looks pretty stable, but of course it has had a much shorter time for change.
They were left to reconcile the whimsical musings of Joseph Smith and his successors with those 2,000 years of history. God as a man, polygamy as the new and everlasting covenant, Adam as God, priesthood ban, etc.
The nature of God as a man who himself had a God who was a man is an extremely significant change to Christianity. Mormons have done a fantastic job disguising it as some small issue, though.
There’s a reason the modern apostles no longer reveal anything. They don’t want to risk making the theological mess any worse than it already is.
drumdude, thank you for responses, we have just enough disagreement within our shared agreement to make for some interest.
I thought you meant changes in LDS doctrine. It is clear that there are some changes in doctrine compared to certain traditional Christian views. I think the Adam business is a disagreement about interpretation of the basic idea of the divine being embodied in a person who was once human as us (perhaps merely a fuss over names). Outside of that minor fuss, the doctrine has remained the same for the LDS church.
Priesthood ban, I have heard nothing indicating the doctrine changed or is now viewed as a mistake. In the 60s my mother was sure the blacks would get the priesthood sometime and then they did.
It was long ago but I do remember when I was a believer and thought LDS doctrine was sharp and was an improvement over some of the messes in traditional Christian ideas. Now I do not see purity either way. I see Christian doctrine as having worked out ways to sort of stabilize thinking in the face of limited human understanding. That is not a bad thing. The trinity contains a lot of mystery inside its formulae. Holding the formulae is better than endless pointless arguments which racked the Christian movement in the first centuries.
In a way one might see the LDS view as hidden within the idea of Trinity. Or maybe not. Do not claim that where Calvin might hear you, you could end up burning at a stake.
You’ll discover Mormonism doesn’t have a system of theology. It has a system of revelation.
Nearly every core Mormon doctrine has been changed, and is still changing. Ad-hoc justifications and rationalizations abound. The closest thing to a professional Mormon theologian is Robert Boylan, an incel who has a collection of 12,000 disjointed blog posts at his Scriptural Mormonism website. It’s a clown show.
The only Mormon worldview is that they follow the brethren.
That is very interesting that you state Mormonism doesn’t have a system of theology and every core Mormon doctrine has changed. Since theology is defined as the study of God, wouldn’t Mormon theology encompass the study of Mormon scripture? Christian theology has led to the development of Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, Biblical authority and inerrancy, original sin, atonement, etc. A Christian doctrine is developed by theologians to summarize a core teaching found in the Bible. These doctrines do not change over time, as Scripture does not change. The words are contextualized to fit into modern applications, but the meaning behind the words does not change. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares the truthfulness, authority, and purpose of God’s Word: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” Are there not Mormon leaders who study the Book of Mormon in order to learn what teachings are contained in it so as to teach others? If Mormon doctrine is changing, how does one know what beliefs to hold or how passages in the Book of Mormon apply to everyday life?
In my opinion Joseph Smith really believed polygamy was a new and everlasting covenant. It wasn’t a minor doctrine, it was a core revelation.
Polygamy? Did someone remove D&C 132 and I not hear about it?
My comment you quoted was about a specific doctrine which is still solidly in place.
"I think the Adam business is a disagreement about interpretation of the basic idea of the divine being embodied in a person who was once human as us (perhaps merely a fuss over names). Outside of that minor fuss the doctrine has remained the same for the LDS church."
I may be uncertain how to continue. Sure there have been changes and adjustments in time. I do not see them as foundational doctrines but that is a sort of relative thing. Your link mentions adjustments in understanding about Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. These are deeper problems about conflicts with reality rather than a problem of making changes. I do not think the changes solve the reality problems for the Book of Mormon.
Mormon leaders themselves and the most conservative stalwarts would never agree that Mormon doctrine has changed, they will say that it's the same today as it was revealed in the Garden of Eden to Adam.
They might not agree that it has a "system of theology" because that may imply going to school and learning the philosophies of men and speculating.
We can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don't have maybe what they're supposed to have. They get rid of some of the people who have been there for 25 years and they work great and then you throw them out and they're replaced by criminals.
You’ll discover Mormonism doesn’t have a system of theology. It has a system of revelation.
Nearly every core Mormon doctrine has been changed, and is still changing. Ad-hoc justifications and rationalizations abound. The closest thing to a professional Mormon theologian is Robert Boylan, an incel who has a collection of 12,000 disjoint blog posts at his Scriptural Mormonism website. It’s a clown show.
The only Mormon worldview is that they follow the brethren.
That is very interesting that you state Mormonism doesn’t have a system of theology and every core Mormon doctrine has changed. Since theology is defined as the study of God, wouldn’t Mormon theology encompass the study of Mormon scripture? Christian theology has led to the development of Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, Biblical authority and inerrancy, original sin, atonement, etc. A Christian doctrine is developed by theologians to summarize a core teaching found in the Bible. These doctrines do not change over time, as Scripture does not change. The words are contextualized to fit into modern applications, but the meaning behind the words does not change. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares the truthfulness, authority, and purpose of God’s Word: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” Are there not Mormon leaders who study the Book of Mormon in order to learn what teachings are contained in it so as to teach others? If Mormon doctrine is changing, how does one know what beliefs to hold or how passages in the Book of Mormon apply to everyday life?
Of course there are Mormon leaders studying scriptures. Mormons are enthusiastic about teaching. Drumdude can find a few changes but there are millions of Mormons who know what their church teaches.
If Mormon doctrine is changing, how does one know what beliefs to hold or how passages in the Book of Mormon apply to everyday life?
Of course there are Mormon leaders studying scriptures. Mormons are enthusiastic about teaching. Drumdude can find a few changes but there are millions of Mormons who know what their church teaches.
They don't find the answer to pgm's question in the scriptures. They find the answer in the brethren.
If the brethren say tomorrow that God doesn't have a body of flesh and blood, then that is the new doctrine. There is no appeal to scripture or even Joseph Smith's teachings that can override whatever the prophets decide to go with tomorrow.
PGM1985 wrote:A Christian doctrine is developed by theologians to summarize a core teaching found in the Bible. These doctrines do not change over time, as Scripture does not change. The words are contextualized to fit into modern applications, but the meaning behind the words does not change. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares the truthfulness, authority, and purpose of God’s Word: 'All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.'
I am curious PGM1985; do you think that if a man who divorces his wife for irreconcilable differences only, and then remarries is committing adultery? I believe the person who wrote the Book of Matthew believes Jesus has concerns about divorce and made comments about it. Do you agree with what the Book of Matthew says about it?
Also, just to let you know that Mormons believe that what their leaders say today about the church and God is on par with what Timothy says and has the same authority; further, what some leaders say about the church and God is modern scripture.
Of course there are Mormon leaders studying scriptures. Mormons are enthusiastic about teaching. Drumdude can find a few changes but there are millions of Mormons who know what their church teaches.
They don't find the answer to pgm's question in the scriptures. They find the answer in the brethren.
If the brethren say tomorrow that God doesn't have a body of flesh and blood, then that is the new doctrine. There is no appeal to scripture or even Joseph Smith's teachings that can override whatever the prophets decide to go with tomorrow.
drumdude, I realize that theoretically you are correct. But it does not explain why Mormons spend a lot of time studying scripture. Yes the brethren provide approved interpretation and those interpretations are taught often.
Actually I think that there is enough strong headed Mormons clinging to their doctrines that a big reversal like you suggest would be a train wreck. Yes some people would nod and invent the idea that the new doctrine is clarification but I think there would be other reactions. There are reasons that there are not big revelations in conference. People want to hear the same ideas as before and that is what they get.
Sure they change policy about things like contraception. They could even adjust the earring guidelines. They adjust Book of Mormon interpretations like where but they are not abandoning the book nor are they making changes that will disturb grandfather's slumber.
Drumdude, I suspect you are wanting to point out that Mormons may imagine that there is no need for change but change has happened. I do wonder if you are speaking as if the audience knows LDS beliefs and culture. You may be giving our new questioner a lopsided picture.
They don't find the answer to pgm's question in the scriptures. They find the answer in the brethren.
If the brethren say tomorrow that God doesn't have a body of flesh and blood, then that is the new doctrine. There is no appeal to scripture or even Joseph Smith's teachings that can override whatever the prophets decide to go with tomorrow.
drumdude, I realize that theoretically you are correct. But it does not explain why Mormons spend a lot of time studying scripture. Yes the brethren provide approved interpretation and those interpretations are taught often.
Actually I think that there is enough strong headed Mormons clinging to their doctrines that a big reversal like you suggest would be a train wreck. Yes some people would nod and invent the idea that the new doctrine is clarification but I think there would be other reactions. There are reasons that there are not big revelations in conference. People want to hear the same ideas as before and that is what they get.
Sure they change policy about things like contraception. They could even adjust the earring guidelines. They adjust Book of Mormon interpretations like where but they are not abandoning the book nor are they making changes that will disturb grandfather's slumber.
Drumdude, I suspect you are wanting to point out that Mormons may imagine that there is no need for change but change has happened. I do wonder if you are speaking as if the audience knows LDS beliefs and culture . You may be giving our new questioner a lopsided picture.
I just find it important to note that there was an entire work, Mormon Doctrine, created to answer his question. Which was viewed as authoritative by most Mormons until very recently. This seems to back up my argument that the real Mormon doctrine is just “follow the brethren.” But I know others may disagree.
