Do the doctrines of God change?

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Moses himself prepared another set of tablets which he took back up to Mount Sinai where the Lord wrote the same commandments on those tablets

I am not sure about them being the same....got to go check that.

Looks like interpretations vary, but the JST has them as different

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-seminary-student-study-guide/the-book-of-exodus/exodus-34-the-lesser-law?lang=eng

Quote

Read the Joseph Smith Translation for Exodus 34:1–2 and write about how the second set of tablets was different from the first.

Quote

1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on thetables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them.

2 But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage. Therefore do as I have commanded thee, and be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me, in the top of the mount.

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by Calm

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

I guess it goes back to the "necessity" of an atonement. One has to assume God couldn't forgive anyone unless he had his son killed in order to believe an atonement was necessary. That's hard to believe, given how powerful God supposedly is. So, the Abraham story seems entirely unnecessary.

If God is the author of those laws and commandments and devised them Himself, maybe. But if God is following natural laws of Justice and Mercy, then He is bound by those laws Himself and thus the necessity of the Atonement.

[Glenn101]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I am not sure about them being the same....got to go check that.

Exodus 34:1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

[Kevin Christensen]

42 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I am familiar with how the story goes.  It's just too much like myth for me to believe.  One would think God would make himself physically present if the christian myth story were reality.  Making it based on feelings and trust in dubious religionists seems closer to fraud than truth.  Fraudsters always demand faith/trust for their schemes to work.  "Eternal" penalties to "sin" is more of the same faith based myth.  Jesus dies and it shocks his followers that Rome could do this to their Son of God and messiah.  A resurrection story is made up as well as the atonement to justify what happened to the supposed king.  Eternal penalties for sin rounds out the myth, inventing a reason behind the untimely death. 

There is no proof for any of this and we are commanded by those who benefit to obey the myth and wait for "answers" in the future world.  I think the better way is to live life now and not worry about whether or not the fraud looking story is true. 

 

This is where putting on the whole armor of cynicism leads.

Mere "feelings and trust in dubious religionists" does not describe my experience.  That is, it happens, a myth, if you want to use "falsehood" as the definition of myth. 

In contrast, Margaret Barker, has argued for a more inspiring view at length in The Risen Lord:

Quote

Margaret Barker therefore offers a new understanding of atonement drawn from Temple traditions, and shows for the first time how Christology and soteriology were necessarily related in the sacrifice of the Son of God. She contends that Jesus knew who he was and what he was doing - that the so-called Christ of faith was not the creation of the early churches but rather the figure Jesus believed himself to be. 

Her essay on Atonement: The Rite of Healing has this:

Quote

Did the first Christians, then, radically alter what was understood by atonement, or was this radical alteration made by subsequent expositors of their ideas?  The latter is more likely; in other words, the original model for New Testament theology has been lost.   George Steiner, in his book The Death of Tragedy, said this:

"When the artist must be the architect of his own mythology, time is against him.  He cannot live long enough to impose his special vision and the symbols he has devised for it on the habits of language and the feelings of his society.  Without an orthodox or public frame to support it, it does not take root in the common soil."

The death of Jesus was interpreted immediately in terms of atonement, even though the first Christians cannot have been, to use Steiner’s phrase, ‘architects of their own mythology’.  That they had been just this, however, is the unacknowledged presupposition of much of the debate.

Notice that Exiled makes exactly that unacknowledged presumption.

For an introduction that undercuts that unacknowledged presumption, that dubious "myth" of the Christian narrative, try "Atonement: The Rite of Healing".

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Otoh, it may be easier to get such in larger quantities that become dangerous due to massive production

I'm not sure that's true.  Didn't Brigham Young bring materials out west to build his own beer brewery?  

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

...drinking alcohol seems to me to be present in a wider range of activities, so those who are vulnerable to it have more chance to become unmoderate drinkers.

I'm also not sure about that.  It seems there was not shortage of wine for Joseph Smith and others during that time.   I have to believe it was available for those who wanted or chose to drink. 

Edited April 9, 2019 by ALarson

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think we are taught to expect the Prophets to be speaking the word of God and not teaching something in one period of time that will be termed "false doctrine" by a later Prophet.

 

Do we have examples of this in our history?

[ALarson]

Just now, bluebell said:

Do we have examples of this in our history?

Yes.  The Adam/God Doctrine.

[bluebell]

Just now, ALarson said:

Yes.  The Adam/God Doctrine.

Can you put up the quote (not doubting you, I'd just like to have the quote where a later prophet said that what BY taught was false doctrine for my notes)?

[Kevin Christensen]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

But we are encouraged to build on them and the laws and prophets "hang" on them, so it seems to me even if we limit our doctrine to these, it does not mean we should avoid laws and policies or instructions from prophets.  

For me it is more understanding what the purpose of other teachings and policies should be.  If they turn us towards these core principles, they are appropriate.  If they weaken our commitment otoh, we should be exploring why and likely reconsider them or at the very least how we choose to implement such.

Building materials are one thing.  We can only use what is at hand, as we see fit.  Secure foundations are another.  If my foundations are secure, I can remodel as necessary, and do renovations and improvements, especially as new and improved materials become available.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Reference please.  Last doctor appt. this advice was given to my mom.  I can't tolerate aspirin even in small amounts, so haven't been paying attention.

I'm sure your mom's doctor knows his or her stuff.  It was mostly a change for people that were otherwise basically health with a few risk factors.  Unfortunately, it's been a while since the news was reporting on it so the only article I can still easily find is from the New York times, and you have to subscribe to read it.  Here's the link if you are interested.

Here.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure that's true.  Didn't Brigham Young bring materials out west to build his own beer brewery?  

I'm also not sure about that.  It seems there was not shortage of wine for Joseph Smith and others during that time.   I have to believe it was available for those who wanted or chose to drink. 

You think Young's brewery came even close adjusted for population to this output?

https://www.anheuser-busch.com/about/breweries-and-tours/fort-collins-co.html

Quote

Shipments: Approximately 225 trucks each day and 30 rail cars each week

Availability to those who wanted, sure...but were they expecting to drink it in as many of venues as it now promoted?

https://www.webmd.com/women/news/20180718/alcohol-consumption-among-women-is-on-the-rise

Quote

McKowen, who lives in North Shore, MA, says as time went on, her drinking started earlier in the day and booze would be part of play dates. She and her friends would do yoga and then go out and drink wine. Her book club was all moms in their 30s, drinking like they did in their 20s. And alcohol even started to show up at birthday parties for 1- and 2-year-olds....

Recent research has shown the gap between men and women with drinking problems is shrinking. Female alcohol use disorder in the United States more than doubled from 2002 to 2013, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Quote

There are some so-called beer labels that claim much higher alcohol content than the average 4 percent to 6 percent. One example is Samuel Adams Utopias, which sells for about $100 for a 24-ounce bottle and boasts an ABV as high as 27 percent. So, what's the catch?

Several beer companies have started experimenting with ways to push the alcohol limit in their beer. For example, Scottish brewers Martin ****ie and James Watt created their limited-edition bottles of Tactical Nuclear Penguin with 32 percent ABV by freezing a 10-percent-ABV beer. They then plucked out the ice (which contained only non-alcohol ingredients), leaving behind a higher concentration of alcohol.

As technology allows brewers to blur the lines between beer, wine and spirits, wise consumers might want to keep an eye on the labels which indicate the ABV of all libations.

https://www.livescience.com/32735-how-much-alcohol-is-in-my-drink.html

I don't know if in general people are drinking more actual alcohol in their drinks or on more occasions vs. what they did in the past, but since the possibility is there, I don't think we should be comparing pints of beer, etc.  Type and percentage of alcohol makes a difference.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Calm

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Yes, that’s a great example!

Christ drank wine and so did Joseph Smith.  Brigham Young drank beer.  And so on.  It’s been men who have made the rules about this that we are now regulated by (to get a temple recommend).  Those can change and have, so I believe these are manmade commandments (it wasn’t even a commandment at first and even that changed).

You are correct on that point. The Word of Wisdom was originally not a commandment but a strong suggestion, a word of warning, and a promise. Requirements for keeping the Word of Wisdom have tightened up over the decades. I think that it was in the 1920's that abstaining from all alcohol was implemented as a requirement to obtain a temple recommend. I think that medical discoveries and studies in the last century and this century have shown just how wise is the Word of Wisdom. I believe that the Word o Wisdom was inspired and has been implemented gradually and mercifully.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not sure about them being the same....got to go check that.

Looks like interpretations vary, but the JST has them as different

Thanks for doing a deeper dive than I did. I had not though to check the JST.

Glenn

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you put up the quote (not doubting you, I'd just like to have the quote where a later prophet said that what BY taught was false doctrine for my notes)?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/10/our-own-liahona?lang=eng

Quote

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Thanks for doing a deeper dive than I did. I had not though to check the JST.

Glenn

It was my certainty I was not wrong that drove me to go deeper today, evil pride.  

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/10/our-own-liahona?lang=eng

 

Thanks!

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

You think Young's brewery came even close adjusted for population to this output?

https://www.anheuser-busch.com/about/breweries-and-tours/fort-collins-co.html

I didn't claim that.  I just doubt there were any shortages.

But, if you have any quotes that there was more of a need than what was produced, I'd honestly be open to reading them (and would be interested in them).

 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I didn't claim that.  I just doubt there were any shortages.

But, if you have any quotes that there was more of a need than what was produced, I'd honestly be open to reading them (and would be interested in them).

 

I think you are misunderstanding me.

It is about expectations more than need.  If one thinks it is appropriate to serve alcohol for the adults at kids birthday parties or have wine at Book clubs and social gatherings rather than tea, consumption level is likely to go up.

There is also the issue of technology and the choice of manufacturers changing alcohol content, both lower and higher.  Does having lower alcohol content make drinking more acceptable in more venues ( say kids' birthday parties)?  Does higher content make dangerous binging more likely?

Also it may even be possible that overall drinking goes down, but due to the possible changes I am finding such as the above, those who are vulnerable are at higher risk than they were back in the 1850s.  In Russia back in 1995 when we were there, for example they had a problem with drunks passing out on sidewalks, often in puddles of urine because they could get vodka in single servings like juice cups.  We were told this was something new and beyond what they had experienced before, though alcoholism had long been a problem in Russia.

 It could be even that there is less alcoholism or binge drinking overall, but it is more dangerous when it happens (think danger of getting hit by a car back when going 35 was top speed vs. over 250 mph today)

Deaths from alcohol increasing in US

Quote

Alcohol is killing Americans at a rate not seen in at least 35 years, according to new federal data. Last year, more than 30,700 Americans died from alcohol-induced causes, including alcohol poisoning and cirrhosis, which is primarily caused by alcohol use.

In 2014, there were 9.6 deaths from these alcohol-induced causes per 100,000 people, an increase of 37 percent since 2002.

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by Calm

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think you are misunderstanding me.

It is about expectations more than need.  If one thinks it is appropriate to serve alcohol for the adults at kids birthday parties or have wine at Book clubs and social gatherings rather than tea, consumption level is likely to go up.

I honestly don't agree with you (other than some extremes).   It seems that it was appropriate to serve and consume alcohol at at temple dedication at one time.  And, there were dangers with drinking too much back then just as there are dangers involved today as well (driving is one of those).  So why was it ok for the early Prophets to drink and smoke?  Do you believe God thought it was a good thing and now He's changed his mind?  IMO, the truth is that it was never good to consume to the point of it being dangerous to your health or to others around you.

IMO, the expectations have mostly changed in the opposite direction.  Excess drinking is more frowned upon (and so is cigarette smoking) today. 

If anything, people are expected to drink more conservatively today than they were back then.

Edited April 9, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I honestly don't agree with you (other than some extremes).   It seems that it was appropriate to serve and consume alcohol at at temple dedication at one time.  And, there were dangers with drinking too much back then just as there are dangers involved today as well (driving is one of those).  So why was it ok for the early Prophets to drink and smoke?  Do you believe God thought it was a good thing and now He's changed his mind?  IMO, the truth is that it was never good to consume to the point of it being dangerous to your health or to others around you.

IMO, the expectations have mostly changed in the opposite direction.  Excess drinking is more frowned upon (and so is cigarette smoking) today. 

If anything, people are expected to drink more conservatively today than they were back then.

Yet deaths due to alcohol are on the rise ( record rates in 35 years iirc), see above link.

PS:  I am speculating based on partial info, .I am not holding a definite position here, but a number of articles about rising problems raise questions for me.  I am also not saying these reasons would be concerns in the 1920s or when other changes took place.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Calm

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yet deaths due to alcohol are on the rise ( record rates in 35 years iirc), see above link.

PS:  I am speculating based on partial info, .I am not holding a definite position here, but a number of articles about rising problems raise questions for me.  I am also not saying these reasons would be concerns in the 1920s or when other changes took place.

I agree with that, but I don't understand why you believe that would cause God to change his mind about alcohol consumption.  Do you believe that at one time, God believed it was a good thing to consume too much alcohol (or smoke...another example)?   (Just trying to figure out what you're stating).

The point I'm making (and what I believe) is that God has always known it was not good to drink in excess.  God hasn't changed His teachings....it's been man who has evolved and changed them.  

Edited April 9, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree with that, but I don't understand why you believe that would cause God to change his mind about alcohol consumption.  Do you believe that at one time, God believed it was a thing to consume alcohol (or smoke...another example)?   (Just trying to figure out what you're stating).

The point I'm making (and what I believe) is that God has always known it was not good to drink in excess.  God hasn't changed His teachings....it's been man who has evolved and changed them.  

I would agree that God's priorities and what he wants to teach doesn't change, but I think at times need changes.

An analogy would be how a speed limit is 50 mph until the area goes residential and builds a school and then speed limit drops to keep people safe.  They were as safe at 50 previously because needs were different.  The principle being taught is safety, how it is being taught and limits included change based on need.

I can see God stepping up stronger teachings against certain behaviours because temptations had become wider spread or more dangerous while not being as verbal about others as less relevant to modern society (meat and idols might be something not mentioned too often).  For example, I would not be surprised if the WoW was revealed again and then included much clearer language about illicit and/or addictive drugs while leaving out some of the language more associated with a rural lifestyle.  Otoh, if membership mostly listen to prophetic updates and don't dismiss them as changes to actual doctrine, then no need for a new canonized revelation in my view.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Calm

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would agree that God's priorities and what he wants to teach doesn't change, but I think at times need changes.

An analogy would be how a speed limit is 50 mph until the area goes residential and builds a school and then speed limit drops to keep people safe.  They were as safe at 50 previously because needs were different.

I can see God stepping up,strong teachings against certain behaviours because temptations had become wider spread or more dangerous.  For example, I would not be surprised if the WoW was revealed again and then included much clearer language about illicit and/or addictive drugs while leaving out some of the language more associated with a rural lifestyle.

I understand your point.  I just believe that God sees everything and doesn't have to wait for things to get bad before he gives us a teaching or commandment.  I believe that comes more from man and reflects whatever is going on socially or culturally.  

I just firmly believe it is not God who changes.  His time is not our time and he's always known (for example) that drinking in excess was not a good thing.  Man just had to catch up.

I hope that makes sense.  You can disagree and I understand that not all will agree on this.

Edited April 9, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

I understand your point.  I just believe that God sees everything and doesn't have to wait for things to get bad before he gives us a teaching or commandment.  I believe that comes more from man and reflects whatever is going on socially or culturally.  

I just firmly believe it is not God who changes.  His time is not our time and he's always known (for example) that drinking in excess was not a good thing.  Man just had to catch up.

I hope that makes sense.  You can disagree and I understand that not all will agree on this.

But does it make sense (to continue the analogy) to insist the speed limit be 20 mph because they have zoned the area for a school in the future?  Or if the residents move out and the school gets torn down and it becomes industrial warehouses or something?  Or does it make more sense to wait until the context arises so that people will better understand and use the commandment?

We have a lot saying they see commandments of whims of God.  How more whimsical would they appear if he applied the same limits for the principles of safety or say reverence for the body 3000 years ago as he might today?  So either commandments need to be very vague and just general principles (which may lose many who are newcomers to faith or weak in some area) or they become nonsensical in other times if he has prophets present them for the worse of times (think differences in terms of clothing choices expressing reverence for the body just in the past 100 years).

PS:  I like the idea of .God giving his general principles throughout time, while also giving the current prophet a few specifics rules to help those new to the principle have the kind of experiences that can help them grow in understanding and eventually be able to apply the principle in all their life.  Some rule changes will be due to morality changes in cultures, good or bad.  Others unrelated to morality such as language and technology changes.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

I also think God needs to direct the prophets to give some trivial rules that support the grand principles because grand principles are often easily accepted as a principle (love your parents)  and don't really drive us to our knees or closets seeking out the Spirit to understand.   Now one earring okay, but not two...that raises questions imo.  Also gay marriage apostate and now not...very confusing.  And since it was prophets that were the source of the confusion, God is the best source of answers, imo.