Future Of The Church

[Freedom]

I have not observed the dumbing down or changing of any principles, ordinances or doctrines in the church. They have remained the same without any altering whatsoever. There are some peripheral teachings that have changed as more information has become available, but the doctrines of salvation have remained constant. Doctrines that are not talked about much anymore generally where never doctrines to begin with but rather commonly held beliefs of church leaders that have either been abandoned or put into perspective as not relevant.

[Monster]

Out of curiosity, what doctrines is the church ejecting?

I don't think it is so much a matter of rejecting as much as de emphasizing. The talk of us being elevated to godhood and producing spirit children is relegated to High Priest quorum speculation. You will not find it in any manuals anymore. Plural marriage although we still practice it in the temple it is not mentioned in any talks anymore.

In another generation or two when us old timers have died out the youth will be left with a watered down version of Mormonism, much like I inherited from those that went before me. The question is will it be strong enough to hold onto its members let alone find converts.

[DBMormon]

I think speculation has been de-emphasized while the true doctrine of Christ has remained.

[Lightbearer]

Do you all feel the Church is truly mainstreaming? Will it become increasingly more standard protestant, ejecting the doctrines that made it is interesting and unique? Is the FARMS/Maxwell Institute a sign the Church wants to become a generic Christian faith? I would find it sad if the critics are finally convincing the Church it needs to ditch all of its unique doctrines in order to become more acceptable and increase its membership.

In a word: NO. In the words of Paul "God forbid!" The Church is not adopting the false philosophies of the world, no matter what critics or apostates think. In fact I see a day when Babylon the great, the mother of abominations will fall and great will be the fall thereof and the Kingdom of God will roll forth until it consumes the entire earth as prophecied by Daniel. There may be causualties in the war between the armies of God and the hosts of Lucifer but there are more that be with us than be with them and the Lord's kingdom will prevail. The Church will never again be taken from the earth, that is the promise of the final dispensation. The Church will never adopt the immoralities or abominations of the world. It will never be seduced by doctrines of devils or powers or wealth or vanity. Through it all the patience of the Saints will help the kingdom overcome the last deaththrows of the adversarys kingdom. The great whore will be consumed by the brightness of His coming. I know not when, but I do believe it is not far distant. If the doctrine of the kingdom offends the wise and learned, so be it. If all hell boils over with hatred for the pure doctrines of the kingdom, let it! Because God is at the helm of the good ship Zion and all earth and hell cannot destroy it.

[Garden Girl]

I don't think it is so much a matter of rejecting as much as de emphasizing. The talk of us being elevated to godhood and producing spirit children is relegated to High Priest quorum speculation. You will not find it in any manuals anymore. Plural marriage although we still practice it in the temple it is not mentioned in any talks anymore.

Hello Monster...

In our current Gospel Principles manual that we use all the time, on page 277 of the chapter titled "Exaltation," please note the listing of "Blessings of Exaltation."

"Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, 'All things are theirs' (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people..."

Please note blessing number 2...

2. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20-23)

The missionaries teach from this manual, so I don't think the Church is de-emphasizing that doctrine.

GG

[Cobalt-70]

I think the church is in the middle of a transition, but it is not a transition from "old-time" Mormonism to a more mainstream Christianity. I don't think it is possible for the LDS Church to do that any time in the next century. Rather, the transition is from homogeneity to pluralism. In the pre-internet era, it was relatively easy for the church to manipulate and control its history and doctrines. Now, with good Mormon historical resources on the internet, and easy access to old sermons, that is impossible. So the church is faced with the impossible quandry of trying to maintain present authority over its doctrine, while denying the doctrinal authority of prior LDS leaders.

The only solution to an intractable conflict of authority is pluralism. So the church is going to have to be increasingly more vague, ambivalent, and multivocal about its doctrines, and more tolerant of divergent views. It is interesting to observe that the peak of the church's effort to enforce doctrinal orthodoxy was in 1993 (the ex-ing of the September Six), which was just before the world wide web began to take off.

[KevinG]

The talk of us being elevated to godhood and producing spirit children is relegated to High Priest quorum speculation.

I don't have time to get through the entire lesson in HP quorum where I teach. Much less discussions of speculative doctrines. My children at home get plenty of the deeper stuff during our discussions at scripture reading time.

[Verum]

Do you all feel the Church is truly mainstreaming? Will it become increasingly more standard protestant, ejecting the doctrines that made it is interesting and unique? Is the FARMS/Maxwell Institute a sign the Church wants to become a generic Christian faith? I would find it sad if the critics are finally convincing the Church it needs to ditch all of its unique doctrines in order to become more acceptable and increase its membership.

Not sure if it really is trying to mainstream. Most of the liberal mormons are the ones mainstreaming and getting all of the press. The church could be doing a lot more if it was truly trying to mainstream.

However, as I think history has shown, I think the church will adapt, change, and do whatever it takes to preserve the institution and ensure membership continues to grow.

[CV75]

So the church is faced with the impossible quandry of trying to maintain present authority over its doctrine, while denying the doctrinal authority of prior LDS leaders.

Not really. The same keys still function in the only true and living Church just as they did before. as mentioned above, the esential thing, the doctrine of Christ, has not changed.

Progress and advancement in making and keeping covenants with God are only appealing to those who have a balanced capacity for correctly integrating their view of what is important/essential from the past, present and future. As the stone rolls forth with greater momentum, it carries its small original core along with its increasing specific surface area, but the expansion is where the real action is.

History and science have no impact on the preeminence of the doctrine of Christ.

[happy]

I think the original design was pretty clear. There was a man named Elohim who did all the right things, got married, was exalted to Godhood. He and His wife had kids, the first two being Jehovah and Lucifer. God wanted to continue the same plan he was under, but had Jehovah and Lucifer come up with more detailed plans. Lucifer's was about forcing people to come back to heaven, Jesus was about agency and letting people chose. The additional problem was Lucifer's plan also included some pride in which Lucifer wanted a lot of the credit when Elohim's kids came back. Jesus's plan was selected by God, Lucifer got bent, and started a war.1/3 of God's kids liked Lucifer's plan and sided with him and eventually Elohim and Jehovah won. Jehovah went down to Earth and became Jesus the Christ, creating the pathway back to Heaven. Heaven was split into 3 categories If you did everything right according to the teachings of the Church, you would show your signs and tokens to the guarding angels (this is publicly discussed in many talks - so it is not restricted), to which then you would call your wife's holy name and bring her from the grave. In a divine union, you and your first wife would be elevated to Godhood, have your own spirit children and thus continue the tradition that Elohim followed.

I didn't make this design up. It is in the King Follette Discourse (which many live listeners agreed was full of things already things Joseph Smith taught), it is in the endowment, it is in the full marriage sealing ceremonies, it is in talks (including prophets), it is in teachings, it is littered throughout the D&C and it is as interwoven into all the core ceremonies and worship of the Church. I hate to use the term, but ejecting any of the above doctrines would leave huge plot-holes in many of the stories and ceremonies we still show and perform today.

It's difficult to back all of this up ask some of it is part of the sacred temple ceremonies and thus impossible to discuss outside of the temple. But anyone being honest and really understanding the Church can not refute this reality.

But therein lies the concern. A lot of these major components, which used to be discussed at all levels of the Church, have been aggressively de-emphasized. And to classify these doctrines as speculation in order to justify sweeping them into a closet is in my feelings dishonest. It feels as if the Church wants so badly to be liked, they are willing to take these doctrines and hide them in order to look "normal". And that is what makes me sad. I believe these revealed truths are what made the Church stand out and what made the Church nessesary. Otherwise we may one day end up being just another sneeze in the large wind of Christian Churches.

[KevinG]

The King Follet funeral sermon was not canonized but it is referenced often in our literature and teachings. I do believe it is a true although very incomplete description of what our eternal origins are. It does not describe in detail the nature of the Father's existence in the eternities but just provides some tantalizing hints and the beautiful truth that we are children of our Father in Heaven. the speculative parts are when people try to add their own flesh to the bones of the ideas. Saying we believe God the father was once sinful or sinned is a downright lie created from whole cloth by our enemies.

I do believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ were always "God" eternally but that does not preclude their having experiences that make them empathetic to our own existance and struggles. For example Christ was perfect in that He was sinless, but that did not exclude him from feeling pain or making mistakes when he learned to be a carpenter or experiencing frustration when those He taught reviled against Him.

[happy]

The King Follet funeral sermon was not canonized but it is referenced often in our literature and teachings. I do believe it is a true although very incomplete description of what our eternal origins are. It does not describe in detail the nature of the Father's existence in the eternities but just provides some tantalizing hints and the beautiful truth that we are children of our Father in Heaven. the speculative parts are when people try to add their own flesh to the bones of the ideas. Saying we believe God the father was once sinful or sinned is a downright lie created from whole cloth by our enemies.

I do believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ were always "God" eternally but that does not preclude their having experiences that make them empathetic to our own existance and struggles. For example Christ was perfect in that He was sinless, but that did not exclude him from feeling pain or making mistakes when he learned to be a carpenter or experiencing frustration when those He taught reviled against Him.

Again, that ignores the larger picture. The King Follet Discourse is only a fraction of the entire picture.

But I am always puzzled by comments like "Saying we believe God the father was once sinful or sinned is a downright lie created from whole cloth by our enemies." I, for one, can relate to a God that actually experienced life rather than just created it. That is why I could never relate to a Catholic Priest I once listened to. He was giving advice on being married.

[KevinG]

Again, that ignores the larger picture. The King Follet Discourse is only a fraction of the entire picture.

But I am always puzzled by comments like "Saying we believe God the father was once sinful or sinned is a downright lie created from whole cloth by our enemies." I, for one, can relate to a God that actually experienced life rather than just created it. That is why I could never relate to a Catholic Priest I once listened to. He was giving advice on being married.

Clarification: Jesus Christ experienced a full life without sinning. It is the accusation that we believe God sinned that is the lie.

[happy]

Clarification: Jesus Christ experienced a full life without sinning. It is the accusation that we believe God sinned that is the lie.

The thing is, I wouldn't be offended if He did sin as a normal person before becoming God. I actually find the idea, often what others have interpreted the King Follet Discourse and "Created in His Image" to ultimately mean, very inspiring.

[CV75]

I, for one, can relate to a God that actually experienced life rather than just created it.

The KFD may be fine for you to use as a motivational tool, but it may not be necessary for others who are keeping the same covenants you are. The members do not all have to have the exact same understanding with regards to every minute point of belief that has been stated (both correctly and incorrectly) for ours to be the only true and living Church.

With all due respect to the KFD, D&C 93:1-20 is the actual canon to follow. What is given us to understand and know therein is 1) how to worship, and 2) know what we worship, so “that [we] may come unto the Father in [Christ’s] name, and in due time receive of his fulness.”

1. How to worship: forsake sin, and come unto Christ, and call on His name, and obey His voice, and keep His commandments (the doctrine of Christ as explained in the Book of Mormon).

2. What we worship: Jesus (or the Father through Jesus, who is one with the Father); the true light and life; the Word, even the messenger of salvation; the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth; the Creator; the Son of God who received grace for grace until He received a fullness, even all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father.

The KFD, if it is an outgrowth of these grace-for-grace doctrines, is only an outgrowth and isn’t the only way these verses need to be taken in order for a Church member to understand and know proper worship (covenant-keeping). “For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.” The worship is about what we do in relation to God and in coming to know Him; there isn’t all that much we need to know about Him to undertake that process. Anything said about Him in the scripture is for the purpose of stimulating real faith, regardless of whatever beliefs and attendant enjoyments arise as well (which is inevitable given our imaginations and agency).

[happy]

The KFD may be fine for you to use as a motivational tool, but it may not be necessary for others who are keeping the same covenants you are. The members do not all have to have the exact same understanding with regards to every minute point of belief that has been stated (both correctly and incorrectly) for ours to be the only true and living Church.

With all due respect to the KFD, D&C 93:1-20 is the actual canon to follow. What is given us to understand and know therein is 1) how to worship, and 2) know what we worship, so “that [we] may come unto the Father in [Christ’s] name, and in due time receive of his fulness.”

1. How to worship: forsake sin, and come unto Christ, and call on His name, and obey His voice, and keep His commandments (the doctrine of Christ as explained in the Book of Mormon).

2. What we worship: Jesus (or the Father through Jesus, who is one with the Father); the true light and life; the Word, even the messenger of salvation; the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth; the Creator; the Son of God who received grace for grace until He received a fullness, even all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father.

The KFD, if it is an outgrowth of these grace-for-grace doctrines, is only an outgrowth and isn’t the only way these verses need to be taken in order for a Church member to understand and know proper worship (covenant-keeping). “For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.” The worship is about what we do in relation to God and in coming to know Him; there isn’t all that much we need to know about Him to undertake that process. Anything said about Him in the scripture is for the purpose of stimulating real faith, regardless of whatever beliefs and attendant enjoyments arise as well (which is inevitable given our imaginations and agency).

That's all great, but I still think the full picture is being ignored. I am pretty sure if you and I were dropped say even 50 years back, the bulk of the membership would recognize and agree with my vision of the Church and its overarching doctrine. And I doubt any of them including the leadership, would consider any of it mere speculation.

[swfarnsworth]

That's all great, but I still think the full picture is being ignored. I am pretty sure if you and I were dropped say even 50 years back, the bulk of the membership would recognize and agree with my vision of the Church and its overarching doctrine. And I doubt any of them including the leadership, would consider any of it mere speculation.

I'm holding an old edition of the Gospel Principles manual, I think from '93. In the section on Exaltation, subsection on enduring to the end, a paragraph begins "This is the way our Heavenly Father become God. [...King Follett Sermon quote...] He wants us to succeed even as he did" (305). The current edition removes the first phrase, but includes the KFS quote and the last phrase.

Also, the first chapter of this old edition, under a section on the nature of God, we read this: "All good things come from God. Everything that He does is to help His children become like Him--a god." In the new edition, "--a god" has been removed.

In both instances the ideas are still present, but less blatant and slightly less frequently. Since revisions like this only shortened the book by 25 pages and didn't represent a retraction of those doctrines, I'm not sure what the motivation was.

[CV75]

That's all great, but I still think the full picture is being ignored. I am pretty sure if you and I were dropped say even 50 years back, the bulk of the membership would recognize and agree with my vision of the Church and its overarching doctrine. And I doubt any of them including the leadership, would consider any of it mere speculation.

I look at it as a maturation process (individually and collectively). More members are progressing toward the fulness and realizing that the full picture is in what they are becoming and the Spirit of it and not in amazing tales. I think leaders recognize this and encourage it as a more successful formula in the Spirit being able to witness to the earnest seeker of truth of what the LDS are putting their faith and action into.

I don't know if what you're decribing is speculation, as I think it has a reasonable basis for belief. But I think it is just that--a belief, and not really something to count on, which doctrine as conveyed by the Spirit would be. On the other hand, you can really count on that which you found "all great" in the scriptures I provided.

Faithful members believe in all kinds of weird stuff and they are still faithful in keeping their covenants--not because of the things they believe, but because of what they truly have faith in. The copper/metal wrist bands for example--used to see them on a lot of high priests say 50 years ago (and more recently, the magnets). They are fads that some have a conviction about, even a testimony if it actually works (or they think it does) in their individual case, but the proof being in the pudding, these types of beliefs don't endure and as not sound "doctrine" don't lead anyone closer to Christ. That is how I see the KFD as we have it in writing today.

Edited August 6, 2012 by CV75

[CV75]

In both instances the ideas are still present, but less blatant and slightly less frequently. Since revisions like this only shortened the book by 25 pages and didn't represent a retraction of those doctrines, I'm not sure what the motivation was.

I think it is to give people enough to want to seek out by the Spirit what this means for them, by reading the scriptures, pondering, praying, fasting, etc. to find out what it really means to become like Him.

[happy]

I can't see it as maturation. It is one thing if you didn't know who I was, then learned I came from Washington State. It is certainly another to learn I am from Seattle Washington, I owned a dry cleaning store, and I like pepperoni pizza, then downplaying each bit, eventually calling it all speculation.

The entire point of the Church was not only to be a Christian Church but to elevate our knowledge of Him, including having a better understanding of the nature and aspects of Him.

And I heard once the eras where these unique doctrines were emphasized, we actually experienced more aggressive growth.

[Tacenda]

I can't see it as maturation. It is one thing if you didn't know who I was, then learned I came from Washington State. It is certainly another to learn I am from Seattle Washington, I owned a dry cleaning store, and I like pepperoni pizza, then downplaying each bit, eventually calling it all speculation.

The entire point of the Church was not only to be a Christian Church but to elevate our knowledge of Him, including having a better understanding of the nature and aspects of Him.

And I heard once the eras where these unique doctrines were emphasized, we actually experienced more aggressive growth.

I think once this election is over, we will have the old church back.

[ERayR]

I think once this election is over, we will have the old church back.

One can never go back. It just isn't the same.

[Cobalt-70]

Not really. The same keys still function in the only true and living Church just as they did before. as mentioned above, the esential thing, the doctrine of Christ, has not changed.

Even if the same keys are still functioning, the church claims doctrinal authority, both in the present and in the past, for more than just its "essential" doctrines. The church still claims that The Prophet, whoever he happens to be at the time, "knows the way" on all manner of ancillary doctrinal issues that extend beyond the basic doctrine of Christ, such as how you should vote, how many earrings you should wear, how much of your shoulders and kneecaps you can show without being immodest, which sex is born to preside and which is born to nurture in the home, etc.

Any time a doctrine in the past is disavowed or "de-emphasized" by present authorities, it undermines the present doctrinal authority of the church. People ask, even if subconsciously, "If the church could have got the doctrine wrong in the past, then how do we know what it teaches now won't be disavowed or 'de-emphasized' 50 years from now?" Either that, or such changes encourage relativism: "follow the Prophet, he knows the way--just don't follow the last Prophet."

So my point is that this is an impossible quandry. The church does not want to continue to teach many embarrassing past doctrines. But when past doctrines are disavowed or de-emphasized, such as by suggesting that the church leader who spoke them was "speaking as a man," that undermines whatever doctrinal points are being made by current church leaders. So it's a choice between fundamentalism and either relativism or pluralism. The church has already departed too far from fundamentalism to go back. Relativism is not a good choice for a church that claims to be the only gateway to heaven. So that leaves pluralism: the idea that the church will choose to remain agnostic on many doctrinal issues, and allow members to come to their own conclusions, without correcting or suppressing them.

[ERayR]

Even if the same keys are still functioning, the church claims doctrinal authority, both in the present and in the past, for more than just its "essential" doctrines. The church still claims that The Prophet, whoever he happens to be at the time, "knows the way" on all manner of ancillary doctrinal issues that extend beyond the basic doctrine of Christ, such as how you should vote, how many earrings you should wear, how much of your shoulders and kneecaps you can show without being immodest, which sex is born to preside and which is born to nurture in the home, etc.

Any time a doctrine in the past is disavowed or "de-emphasized" by present authorities, it undermines the present doctrinal authority of the church. People ask, even if subconsciously, "If the church could have got the doctrine wrong in the past, then how do we know what it teaches now won't be disavowed or 'de-emphasized' 50 years from now?" Either that, or such changes encourage relativism: "follow the Prophet, he knows the way--just don't follow the last Prophet."

So my point is that this is an impossible quandry. The church does not want to continue to teach many embarrassing past doctrines. But when past doctrines are disavowed or de-emphasized, such as by suggesting that the church leader who spoke them was "speaking as a man," that undermines whatever doctrinal points are being made by current church leaders. So it's a choice between fundamentalism and either relativism or pluralism. The church has already departed too far from fundamentalism to go back. Relativism is not a good choice for a church that claims to be the only gateway to heaven. So that leaves pluralism: the idea that the church will choose to remain agnostic on many doctrinal issues, and allow members to come to their own conclusions, without correcting or suppressing them.

Only to those with a rigid legalistic mindset.

[CV75]

I can't see it as maturation. It is one thing if you didn't know who I was, then learned I came from Washington State. It is certainly another to learn I am from Seattle Washington, I owned a dry cleaning store, and I like pepperoni pizza, then downplaying each bit

You are emphasizing knowing things about you, but there is nothing said about actually knowing, understanding or becoming like you or one with you.

, eventually calling it all speculation.

I thought I made it clear that what you were saying (“There was a man named Elohim who did all the right things, got married, was exalted to Godhood. He and His wife had kids, the first two being Jehovah and Lucifer…”) is not necessarily speculation and has a reasonable basis for belief, but it isn’t a sound basis for faith in keeping the covenants. That is something else. For one thing, there are a few points that are just plain wrong! But the main problem with your belief is that there is a world of difference between belief and faith (and their fruits).

The entire point of the Church was not only to be a Christian Church but to elevate our knowledge of Him, including having a better understanding of the nature and aspects of Him.

The entire point of the Church is to help us know God, not just know about God (D&C 132:24). This is the "elevation" of knowledge. This is where the maturation is evident.

And I heard once the eras where these unique doctrines were emphasized, we actually experienced more aggressive growth.

What you say you heard might not be speculation, but it is a belief in a conclusion about things that may not be cause-and-effect after all (growth may not be due to teaching about God). Maybe these kinds of ideas were once emphasized by those with the keys to administer the doctrine of Christ, and maybe a belief in them led to growth, but again, belief in these things does not require real faith, and our faith must be in accordance with D&C 20:21-28 (and 29-31). It's like the difference between titllation and genuine interest.