Doctrine Changes with Time

[_Roger Morrison]

Doesn't doctrine for every religion change over time? Is there any evidence that it doesn't? Change after all seems inevitable with all things.Evolution?? On top of that, the LDS Church has designed in fluidity from new insights, exigencies and revelations.Expecting to change. LDSism has some smarts in their quest of self-perpetuation (Colored comments added by RM)

It is obvious that LDS Doctrine has changed. Which fact strongly projects LDS Doctrine will continue to change, when change is called for... After all, it "...has designed in fluidity..." AoF # 9.

May be related to this topic: I heard the term "Private Revelation" which is experienced in LDSism. A leader receives "Word" he believes to be from God. He relays that to LDS believers, who also believe that it's from God. If they don't believe, their membership could be at risk. Leaders "Private Revelation" then directs Church in a given direction...

Then there is "Public Revelation" that can come to anyone. Who can tell anyone who is free to believe or not. PR can them be worked upon to a more perfect state and Universal application. Open to the public... Evolving truth as experienced in secular society...

Seemed interesting in its lecture context... Afraid to ask for comments. Shades might require the WHOLE-THING, then not comment Oh well...

Roger
*
*

[_JAK]

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

OR, God as claimed by conflicted religious dogmas never existed.

OR, if one claims "God was once man”, that speculates that God along with man was a very late comer to the universe and even to the planet earth. Here is information to keep in mind regarding the time-frame for the emergence of “modern humans.”

“Doctrine Changes…” as new information comes to light rendering previous doctrine flawed, wrong.

JAK

[_moksha]

Seemed interesting in its lecture context... Afraid to ask for comments. Shades might require the WHOLE-THING, then not comment Oh well...

Roger
*
*

Thanks for the comments Roger. In case Shades fails to comment in full, your should request the comment under the doctrine of Responeat Shadior.

[_Dr. Shades]

Thanks for the comments Roger. In case Shades fails to comment in full, your should request the comment under the doctrine of Responeat Shadior.

??? I have no idea what your point is.

[_harmony]

May be related to this topic: I heard the term "Private Revelation" which is experienced in LDSism. A leader receives "Word" he believes to be from God. He relays that to LDS believers, who also believe that it's from God. If they don't believe, their membership could be at risk. Leaders "Private Revelation" then directs Church in a given direction...

I don't think it works that way, Roger.

Leaders receive 2 types of revelation/inspiration: the personal kind that everyone can receive and that which is specific for the church. They don't share the personal inspiration with anyone, as it's private, but the revelation/inspiration that leaders receive for the church is shared with the members. It's public, in the sense that once the leaders receive it, they share it.

Once the leaders share it, the individual members are supposed to seek God's guidance (their own personal revelation/inspiration) to make sure what the leaders say is really true and applicable to the individual member. Something may be true and applicable, true and not applicable, or not true and not applicable. The revelation/inspiration that members receive is for themselves, and no one else. Therefore, it's private, in the sense that once they receive it, they don't share it.

Membership is only at risk if the member takes his personal inspiration and makes it public by publically denouncing the leaders' revelation/inspiration. It's fine to disagree, and to rely on one's own personal inspiration, but to publically disagree is to risk one's membership, because that is telling the church that the prophet isn't doing his job (and you know THAT can't be true!)