Doctrine Changes with Time

[_Dr. Shades]

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, . . .

We're not "boxed in" with only these choices. Those are, quite literally, the only two choices there are.

. . . 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.

Good point. So it's time to accept the inevitable, jettison Mormonism, and become a critic.

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.

I agree. Welcome to the path of the critic of Mormonism.

[_JAK]

Shades stated:
We're not "boxed in" with only these choices. Those are, quite literally, the only two choices there are.

While it is possible to construct a restrictive either/or argument, it is an unlikely case. The issue is chained to doctrinal claims. Since such claims have not been established as reliable, there are other options than those.

That “speculation has been entered into the record as being ultimate truth” is to open the possible constructions well beyond the dogma of a particular “speculation.” (not sure what contributor was quoted here)

Shades stated:
Good point. So it's time to accept the inevitable, jettison Mormonism, and become a critic.

One could say that. However, it is far behind the curve of present-day analysis regarding religious mythologies.

There are many religious mythologies. They are a product of modification multiple times and over time. Certainly “a critic” recognizes that.

JAK

[_JAK]

Doesn't doctrine for every religion change over time? Change after all seems inevitable with all things. On top of that, the LDS Church has designed in fluidity from new insights, exigencies and revelations.

Why should we need to always repeat past mistakes?.

Of course “doctrine for every religion changes over time” as you correctly observed. One problem for humans who live surrounded by some doctrine or another is that they generally do not or cannot see the larger picture which you characterize here.

Education begins anew with every person at whatever point that person enters into a world of information. It would be interesting if every new human could really build upon the great intellects and the wealth of information previously accumulated. Such is not the case.

Hence, many do “repeat past mistakes.” They may do so unaware of the fact that they are doing it. Progress toward greater understanding of the intricacies of the world or the universe is much slower for some than for others.

People imprisoned by erroneous mythologies have a most difficult time escaping them. Some never do. Others, perhaps more fortunate, begin their childhood with exposure to a great wealth of information (as they are intellectually ready to absorb it). Parents who expose their children to the best in historical literacy give their children an escape route to the very point you make regarding “repeating past mistakes.”

JAK

[_Dr. Shades]

Shades stated:
We're not "boxed in" with only these choices. Those are, quite literally, the only two choices there are.

While it is possible to construct a restrictive either/or argument, it is an unlikely case. The issue is chained to doctrinal claims. Since such claims have not been established as reliable, there are other options than those.

Forget doctrinal claims. Forget reliability. Either God was once a man, or he wasn't.

Think of it this way: Either you, JAK, are a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens, or you're not. It doesn't matter what the doctrine is. It doesn't matter whether any claims are reliable. You are either a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens or you're not.

Shades stated:
Good point. So it's time to accept the inevitable, jettison Mormonism, and become a critic.

One could say that. However, it is far behind the curve of present-day analysis regarding religious mythologies.

We're not talking about "mythologies" here. We're talking about whether something is true or whether it isn't.

There are many religious mythologies. They are a product of modification multiple times and over time. Certainly “a critic” recognizes that.

Truth and falsehood are independent of mythology.

[Guest]

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.

Weak, weak,weak.
It's "back to the drawing board" for you!

Totally faulty logic you desire to apply here moksha. The principles and laws (Doctrine?) upon which the Universe operates are in fact unchanging.

Your attempt at using logic in this case fails miserably.

I would suggest trying another approach.

Perhaps one not so easily discounted and discarded as being so completely without value and "illogical".

[_truth dancer]

If you want to know how LDS doctrine will change in the future, just look at what is mainstream understanding today and project out another generation or so.

Another fifty years and LDS church apologists will assert the church never had an issue with homosexuality; that women were not under covenant to follow their husbands rather than Christ; that it was never taught that Native Americans are Lamanites.



~td~

[_moksha]

. . . 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.

Good point. So it's time to accept the inevitable, jettison Mormonism, and become a critic.

But why must it be inevitable? Had I entered the Church asleep, (in the Buddhist usage) and had unrealistic expectations that it all must be "oh so true on everthing" then perhaps I would be disappointed. Having reentered the Church more fully awake I do not. I suppose there is a similarity to progressive and evangelical Christians exploring whether parts of the Bible are allegorical or literal. If you were an evangelical, it would be discombobulating to learn that many parts are allegorical. If your were a progressive, then this knowledge would be expected rather than be a surprise.

I would say that in our change or progression we cannot be bound by past speculation or it will skew our search for knowledge as well as meaning.

I agree. Welcome to the path of the critic of Mormonism.

Does this path have hidden trap side entrances to the Boulevard of Obsessiveness?

[_moksha]

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

Weak, weak,weak.
It's "back to the drawing board" for you!

Totally faulty logic you desire to apply here moksha. The principles and laws (Doctrine?) upon which the Universe operates are in fact unchanging.

So is doctrine now interchangeable with say for instance, the Laws of Thermodynamics? Of course you could always point out that change is predicted through these Laws of Thermodynamics. Are you willing to certify that doctrine by definition is unchanging? If so, you do indeed display impeccable logic.

[_Dr. Shades]

Had I entered the Church asleep, (in the Buddhist usage) and had unrealistic expectations that it all must be "oh so true on everthing" then perhaps I would be disappointed. Having reentered the Church more fully awake I do not.

You and I are one.

I don't have any unrealistic expectations that it all must be "oh so true" that you need to attend church or pay tithing. So I don't attend church or pay tithing. I, too, am fully awake.

I suppose there is a similarity to progressive and evangelical Christians exploring whether parts of the Bible are allegorical or literal. If you were an evangelical, it would be discombobulating to learn that many parts are allegorical. If your [sic] were a progressive, then this knowledge would be expected rather than be a surprise.

I am a progressive. That's how I learned that the requirements to attend church and pay tithing are merely allegorical.

[_JAK]

Shades stated:
We're not "boxed in" with only these choices. Those are, quite literally, the only two choices there are.

While it is possible to construct a restrictive either/or argument, it is an unlikely case. The issue is chained to doctrinal claims. Since such claims have not been established as reliable, there are other options than those.

Forget doctrinal claims. Forget reliability. Either God was once a man, or he wasn't.

Think of it this way: Either you, JAK, are a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens, or you're not. It doesn't matter what the doctrine is. It doesn't matter whether any claims are reliable. You are either a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens or you're not.

Shades stated:
Good point. So it's time to accept the inevitable, jettison Mormonism, and become a critic.

One could say that. However, it is far behind the curve of present-day analysis regarding religious mythologies.

We're not talking about "mythologies" here. We're talking about whether something is true or whether it isn't.

There are many religious mythologies. They are a product of modification multiple times and over time. Certainly “a critic” recognizes that.

Truth and falsehood are independent of mythology.

Shades stated:
Forget doctrinal claims. Forget reliability. Either God was once a man, or he wasn't.

The claim is a doctrinal claim. There is no broad consensus in Christianity for the claim. Second, “reliability” is critical. Absent reliability and broad consensus on evidence that supports a claim of fact, the claim should be rejected.

Third, there is no consensus on God claims. Different Christian groups claim different things in their God assertions.

Fourth, Timeline of Evolution for the planet earth is complex and requires no God claim. Those who make such claims, make it up. They rely on their own evolving doctrines for making claims.

Fifth, Development (or evolution) of religion has origins dating to early humans. Those developments have been in continuous change. In some cases the change was slow (over hundreds of human years). In other cases, there were dramatic breaks with a religious perspective.

Your second paragraph mixes one of definition and one of speculation. There is indeed broad and universal consensus regarding definition for homo sapiens. That statement is correct but in no way on a par with the claim that God was once a man. No evidence has established God much less that “God was once a man.” We have evidence for homo sapiens. We have evidence for the evolution of hundreds of thousands of species on the planet earth. There is enormous scientific consensus on that.

The links provided demonstrate the complexity of evolution of life on the 4.5 billion year-old planet.

Critical to your speculation is reliability of the claim. If we are to be intellectually honest, we have to take into account the evidence we humans now have. Absent the capacity to establish the parameters or details for God, it’s an irrelevant claim. The additional claim (which apparently some wish to make) that this God “was once a man.”

While the age of the earth has general agreement, there is likewise general agreement on the age of the universe as reported in the New York Times.

Hence, the age of man is far shorter than the age of the universe. And the age of man is far shorter than the age of the planet earth.

Mindless belief in that for which no evidence can be objectively presented, tested, and confirmed is “doctrinal claim.” Contrary to your claim, you are talking about “mythologies.”

The burden of proof lies with those who make a claim. Objective, detached, dispassionate unemotional, evidence is a prerequisite for meeting the burden of proof. In addition, the more extraordinary the claim, the greater the need for compelling evidence.

Shades stated:
We're not talking about "mythologies" here. We're talking about whether something is true or whether it isn't.

Incorrect, Shades. The assertions regarding God claims are indeed mythologies. Recognize that we have no unified agreement among the many religions (past and present) on their various claims for truth.

It is the last resort of those who lack evidence to claim truth by assertion.

Shades stated:
Truth and falsehood are independent of mythology.

Yes. And assertions of “truth” absent well documented consensus on information leading to conclusions is unreliable.

JAK