Thinking Posted March 17, 2014 Author Posted March 17, 2014 You still have not explained the difference between "principal" and "among" and what that was supposed to be about. Old BoM Intro: After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. New BoM Intro: After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.
pogi Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) Whenever there is a change of some kind, continuing revelation (the last part of AoF 9) seems to be the calling card to justify throwing something old out in favor of something new. However, the first part of AoF 9 reads, We believe all that God has revealed. Allowing old doctrine to be replaced by new revelations would necessitate a change in the word and to or. Saying that we believe all that God has revealed is not the same as saying that we practice all that God has revealed, so there is no need to change the word "and" to "or".. There are changes in doctrine and law that have occurred, and will continue to occur. There are old laws (old testament) and new laws (new testament) there are lower laws (tithing) and higher laws (consecration) This is not unique to LDS theology. I don't think any Christian would say that they don't believe in the old testament, and yet they don't practice the laws therein such as "eye for an eye", circumcision, and sacrifice of animals. Instead, they practice the new laws of "turn the other check", circumcision of heart, and a sacrifice of a broken heart and contrite spirit. Edited March 17, 2014 by pogi 1
DBMormon Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 regarding OP - not sure your concern is valid. Elder Christofferson said this - "In the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation." link If the Church screws up, which it has admittedly done at times (race theories) AoF#9 allows for corrections. We are led by a prophet and that prophets can receive revelations which make null and void the nonsense of the past.
pogi Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) regarding OP - not sure your concern is valid. Elder Christofferson said this - If the Church screws up, which it has admittedly done at times (race theories) AoF#9 allows for corrections. We are led by a prophet and that prophets can receive revelations which make null and void the nonsense of the past. I agree, but I think that you both are confusing "revelations" with the teachings of men within the church. AOF #9 is speaking about revelations from God, not about screwed up teachings or "nonsense" of the past. Nor does it have anything to do with this: Old BoM Intro: After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. New BoM Intro: After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians. Edited March 17, 2014 by pogi 1
mfbukowski Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Old BoM Intro: After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. New BoM Intro: After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.One could easily argue that either way. They might be "among the principle ancestors" or among the minority ancestors. There are only interpretations of words and all words are ambiguous. An addition is a change. If you are married to one wife and "add" another, would you say that is a doctrinal change? Sweeping generalizations using ambiguous terms are generally virtually meaningless to those who are logically inclined. That's why it's best to acknowledge the ambiguity of language rather than thinking one is saying something valuable by making a supposed distinction between an "addition" and a "change"
DBMormon Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I agree, but I think that you both are confusing "revelations" with the teachings of men within the church. AOF #9 is speaking about revelations from God, not about screwed up teachings or "nonsense" of the past. Nor does it have anything to do with this: Please help me understand what the OP sees as the problem and why my understanding isn't speaking to it.Thank youBill
Thinking Posted March 17, 2014 Author Posted March 17, 2014 That's why it's best to acknowledge the ambiguity of language rather than thinking one is saying something valuable by making a supposed distinction between an "addition" and a "change" The Church is the one making the distinction by using both terms in the same sentence.the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices.
changed Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Any addition modifies an interpretation and so is a whole different way of seeing the topic. So until we know everything, we don't don't know anything. ... it's the twist at the end of the movie, only it isn't a movie, it's life.
omni Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 One could easily argue that either way. They might be "among the principle ancestors" or among the minority ancestors. There are only interpretations of words and all words are ambiguous. An addition is a change. If you are married to one wife and "add" another, would you say that is a doctrinal change?Sweeping generalizations using ambiguous terms are generally virtually meaningless to those who are logically inclined.That's why it's best to acknowledge the ambiguity of language rather than thinking one is saying something valuable by making a supposed distinction between an "addition" and a "change"So why do you believe the church changed the words?
mfbukowski Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Please help me understand what the OP sees as the problem and why my understanding isn't speaking to it.Thank youBillExactly my problem as well. I still don't see it.
Wanderer7 Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I don't know how big of a deal it is to classify the Holy Spirit as a personage, but it's clear that back then he wasn't, but now he is. As far as the corporeal status of the Father, why make a distinction if there is none? One more thought: After they were declared profitable for doctrine, the next statement declares them as doctrine. The lectures don't make any comment one way or the other as to the personality of the Spirit, only to His role. In addition, LDS theology draws a distinction between the Spirit of God in the sense of His divine influence, and the Holy Spirit the Being. In any case, it's pretty clear that He WAS considered a Personage as early as 1830 (1 Nephi 11:1-12).Although many of the early converts took some convincing, which may have explained why either Sidney was a little confused or the lectures were presented in a way so as to be more understandable to the audience--which explains one reason why a distinction is made. The other thing to keep in mind is that the Savior was the only Being to have come to earth and taken a body out of the Three. So there is automatically a distinction there. Whether Joseph understood at this time that the Father had a perfected body, I can't say for certain (anyone else know?). I rather suspect that much of the church would have had a hard time with it this early on in either case. I still don't read that as being revealed doctrine. It makes a distinction that the revelations were directly from God, while the lectures were profitable. We still call it the Doctrine and Covenants even without the "doctrine."
mfbukowski Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 So why do you believe the church changed the words?Clearly it was to make the possibility- which many of us have seen forever- that the Lehi band were not the first and only people of all the millions who lived before us, to reach the western hemisphere and establish a permanent presence, legitimate. The idea that the Native Americans were all descendants of Lehi was becoming suspect- that was the reason for all the DNA testing etc. But though that was taught, it was a misunderstanding of what the scripture actually says. Just like the idea that blacks were cursed was repudiated, this is another belief that Lehi is the father of Native Americans is inconsistent with the present view of doctrine. I have no problem with doctrine changing- we have an open canon- it is supposed to change. I do not adhere to the idea that scripture is infallible and is revealed once for all times. Funny, I thought no Mormons believed that. But all this fuss about whether or not doctrine has "changed" is quite unbelievable to me, that it would even be a discussion point. Everyone knows we do not adhere to sola scriptura. There should not even be a discussion of it. Yes, for Mormons doctrine is quite fluid as interpreted by the prophet. Doesn't everyone know that? What's the problem with that? 1
mfbukowski Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 So until we know everything, we don't don't know anything. ... it's the twist at the end of the movie, only it isn't a movie, it's life.Eternal progression says there will never be a time we "know everything" because "everything" is always changing. THAT is life- eternal and otherwise. There is not somewhere a list of "All Truth" waiting to be discovered. We are creating reality as we go.
mfbukowski Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 The Church is the one making the distinction by using both terms in the same sentence.Sorry. No communication is happening here at all between you and me. 1
mfbukowski Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 As far as the corporeal status of the Father, why make a distinction if there is none?As far as the difference between addition and change, why make a distinction if there is none? 1
Thinking Posted March 17, 2014 Author Posted March 17, 2014 As far as the difference between addition and change, why make a distinction if there is none? "Honey, I wonder if we could add something to tonight's dinner?""Sure Dear, what?""Can we add some peas?""OK, change the carrots to peas?""No, add peas and keep the carrots?""But you said you wanted to add peas.""Right, and keep the carrots.""I don't understand." 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 "Honey, I wonder if we could add something to tonight's dinner?""Sure Dear, what?""Can we add some peas?""OK, change the carrots to peas?""No, add peas and keep the carrots?""But you said you wanted to add peas.""Right, and keep the carrots.""I don't understand." The Church isn't Burger King. You can't have it your way. 1
Ahab Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 The Church isn't Burger King. You can't have it your way. Yes I can and I do. My way is our Lord's way and he lets me have both carrots and peas. And there are usually more than only 2 carrots.
Bikeemikey Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 The Church isn't Burger King. You can't have it your way.If it was fasting testimony meeting would be impossible!
krampus Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 did the Book of Abraham reveal and reconfirm the reality of young earth creationism?
Bikeemikey Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 did the Book of Abraham reveal and reconfirm the reality of young earth creationism?Nope!
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Article of Faith #9 The following statement is on the official website of the LDS Church. In my opinion, a change is much different than an addition. For example, LDS believe that Jesus Christ is the creator of the earth. If additional knowledge about the creation was revealed, could that knowledge change the original doctrine? Whenever there is a change of some kind, continuing revelation (the last part of AoF 9) seems to be the calling card to justify throwing something old out in favor of something new. However, the first part of AoF 9 reads, We believe all that God has revealed. Allowing old doctrine to be replaced by new revelations would necessitate a change in the word and to or.Every new Temple that is announced is revelation, every program change (major ones) are all revelation.
mfbukowski Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) "Honey, I wonder if we could add something to tonight's dinner?""Sure Dear, what?""Can we add some peas?""OK, change the carrots to peas?""No, add peas and keep the carrots?""But you said you wanted to add peas.""Right, and keep the carrots.""I don't understand."Doctrine, peas and carrots Two of these things are not like the other Two of these things are kinda the same One of these things is not like the other. Now it's time to play our game. Now please tell me that you understand the difference between doctrine and carrots. Edited March 19, 2014 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts