Evolving Mormon Doctrine

mfbukowski · November 18, 2015

!

It's for real all right, but only symbolically. It's not for real in a literal sense. It can't be.

Yeah ok

Never mind. Maybe things come out of your mouth, but words come out of mine.

If I were you I would be careful saying the world "elephant".

Might be uncomfortable

Edited November 18, 2015 by mfbukowski

Analytics · November 19, 2015

Yeah ok
Never mind. Maybe things come out of your mouth, but words come out of mine.

If I were you I would be careful saying the world "elephant".

Might be uncomfortable

I'll avoid saying anything larger than a tablespoon, lol.

I get that words are just imperfect descriptions of ideas, and ideas are not and in fact cannot be complete and accurate representations of reality. But I believe reality is out there, and I believe that with careful observation and clear thinking our understanding of reality can improve.

I get the distinct impression that you go off into these philosophical directions because you want to be able to say things like, "I believe in the Fall" without committing to any specific ideas.

thatjimguy · November 19, 2015

I don't believe the church can ever really let go of the literal aspect.

Part of saving someone that is down and out is to get them to believe in the straight and narrow path.

You can't do that if everything seems wishy-washy. I even notice that in myself sometimes. When I start thinking "We are a church of ideas and men trying their best." I good, but I am not as tight on sins because part of me is saying "It really doesn't matter anyway. It's just good stories and ideas."

But during the times where I open myself up to even the possibility that it is literal, I tend to have more resolve.

So, I think that is why we must still preach literalness for the sake of those who really need something to believe in when they need it.

mfbukowski · November 19, 2015

I'll avoid saying anything larger than a tablespoon, lol.

I get that words are just imperfect descriptions of ideas, and ideas are not and in fact cannot be complete and accurate representations of reality. But I believe reality is out there, and I believe that with careful observation and clear thinking our understanding of reality can improve.

I get the distinct impression that you go off into these philosophical directions because you want to be able to say things like, "I believe in the Fall" without committing to any specific ideas.

No, I really do believe in the fall. It's ok.

I just know that without a brain I wouldn't see "reality" the way I do now. Think about that, or don't. It's ok. All those lightwaves, those atmospheric vibrations, cosmic rays without a brain to organize them into chairs and tables. I bump into them in the dark just like everyone else, but I may not "know what they are" until I turn on the light and access their name. But what are they "really"??

Even those words are not what they "really" are. Are lightwaves waves or particles? How much space is between the "atoms" of that thing that just bruised my leg?

Maybe you want to believe you know what they "really are literally" but I sure don't.

I see believing in something outside of perception to be a religious position in itself. I don't have enough faith to believe in things I cannot experience.

mfbukowski · November 19, 2015

I apologize for this post.

It was totally uncalled for, snarky, and unchristian. Sorry all

Edited November 19, 2015 by mfbukowski

thatjimguy · November 19, 2015

Yes, we need to help the handicapped I suppose.

Not catching you on that.

Kevin Christensen · November 19, 2015

Just once, I would like to see someone start a thread on "evolving" Mormon doctrine that begins by quoting the formal and authoritative definition of what is, and is not to be considered doctrine.

3 Nephi 11:34-40

Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

Notice that building on either more or less than this constitutes a dangerous place upon which to build one's faith, or non-faith, as the case may be.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

mfbukowski · November 19, 2015

Just once, I would like to see someone start a thread on "evolving" Mormon doctrine that begins by quoting the formal and authoritative definition of what is, and is not to be considered doctrine.
3 Nephi 11:34-40
Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.
32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.
35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
Notice that building on either more or less than this constitutes a dangerous place upon which to build one's faith, or non-faith, as the case may be.
FWIW
Kevin Christensen
Bethel Park, PA

Thanks for that and if anyone cares about my position on it, I affirm that with all my heart and believe it with all my heart. I have received direct personal revelation of those principles verbally and in ways which cannot be spoken.

Perhaps that needed clarification and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

thatjimguy · November 19, 2015

Just once, I would like to see someone start a thread on "evolving" Mormon doctrine that begins by quoting the formal and authoritative definition of what is, and is not to be considered doctrine.
3 Nephi 11:34-40
Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.
32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.
35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
Notice that building on either more or less than this constitutes a dangerous place upon which to build one's faith, or non-faith, as the case may be.
FWIW
Kevin Christensen
Bethel Park, PA

Now the thing is, does this mean there is not evolving doctrine? There are more that is to be written that we do not have as I understand it. There are other books and such.

Much like the people of the Old Testament, who were barbarians at the time, used to kill off entire cities, women, and children. That just the level were they could understand things, and possibly the age in which they lived dictated those actions too.

However, we are a different society now, and for the better despite our faults. I doubt we would think that actions like that would come around any longer.

Deborah · November 19, 2015

Now the thing is, does this mean there is not evolving doctrine?

I wouldn't say evolving doctrine; I would say evolving knowledge and understanding. Also times change which require differences in practice but the doctrine remains the same.

HappyJackWagon · November 19, 2015

According to LDS belief, it is the Lord who would reinstate plural marriage, not the Church per se.

I know of many fundamentalist groups which would agree with you.

Analytics · November 20, 2015

No, I really do believe in the fall. It's ok.

I just know that without a brain I wouldn't see "reality" the way I do now. Think about that, or don't. It's ok. All those lightwaves, those atmospheric vibrations, cosmic rays without a brain to organize them into chairs and tables. I bump into them in the dark just like everyone else, but I may not "know what they are" until I turn on the light and access their name. But what are they "really"??

Even those words are not what they "really" are. Are lightwaves waves or particles? How much space is between the "atoms" of that thing that just bruised my leg?

Maybe you want to believe you know what they "really are literally" but I sure don't.

I see believing in something outside of perception to be a religious position in itself. I don't have enough faith to believe in things I cannot experience.

Do I dare ask what any of this has to do with the topic?

All I'm saying is that classical Mormon Doctrine--the abstract theoretical model of where we came from, why are we here, and where are we going--doesn't seem to be compatible with the theory of Evolution--the well-defined (and yet still abstract in the way that all scientific knowledge is abstract) scientific theory that ties together the genetic relationships between living things and robustly explains why the living world is the way it is.

A big inconsistency is with the claim that there was no death before the fall, that the fall brought death into the world, and that the atonement will fix the problem of death. But perhaps the biggest problem is the physical relationship between us and God. The theory of Evolution, and all of biology, really, robustly shows that we are an intrinsic part of the world, which has always been in the "fallen" state that we now see; we are a part of this world, and we are directly related to all forms of life here. That being the case, in what way could we be related to an extraterrestrial God of flesh and bones?

As an example of what I'm getting at, consider this question: does God have toenails? Toenails on humans don't perform any actual necessary function, but they are there because we evolved from animals that had useful claws on their back feet. When we evolved into homo sapiens, our claws evolved into useless toenails. That's were we got our toenails. Are we to believe that God--a glorified being from another planet--has toenails too?

If we believe that human beings came about by a process of evolution, it gives us a robust, evidence-based explanation for where we came from. But that explanation seriously calls into question the nature of God and our relationship with God. Some people propose something called, "Guided Evolution," with the idea being that God looks like us--toenails and all--and He pulled certain strings at certain times for the last 4 billion years so that evolution would eventually create beings like us with toenails like ours. However, that still leaves unanswered the question for why God has toenails in the first place?

My point is that if we accept evolution, there are either going to be inconsistencies between evolution and the Plan of Salvation, or the Plan of Salvation will need to be modified to something other than what Bruce R. McConkie thought the scriptures said.

cinepro · November 20, 2015

It would be interesting to see what kind of mass-resignation event would occur should the church reinstate polygamy. I'm hoping that day never comes.

I have it on good authority that the entire 14th floor of the Church Office Building (which houses the PR department) is wired with C4 and a keyed detonator. Otterson has the only key, and if the Church ever allows polygamy again, he will blow himself and the entire PR department to smithereens (they all agree to this when hired on board).

cinepro · November 20, 2015

My point is that if we accept evolution, there are either going to be inconsistencies between evolution and the Plan of Salvation, or the Plan of Salvation will need to be modified to something other than what Bruce R. McConkie thought the scriptures said.

If you want to believe in official LDS doctrines and teachings and evolution at the same time, the first thing you have to do is create a little box for poor Elder McConkie and put him inside. Then when someone cites one of his many teachings on the subject, you just have to say "Oh, you're talking about Elder McConkie. I don't have to worry about any of that because I've put him in this little box here where I can't see or hear him, so nothing he says matters."

The only difference is that some people poke air holes in the box, and others don't.

But even if you take Elder McConkie out of the equation, there are huge problems with the theory of evolution and LDS doctrines about the creation and fall as taught in the scriptures and official Church publications.

For example, take something as simple as the spiritual creation.

Spiritual Creation

The doctrine is simple:

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

Moses 3
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/3.5-7?lang=eng#4

So to those who say there is no contradiction, please explain the process by which the Lord created all things (including plants, animals and humans) "spiritually", and then created them physically using evolution. Please specifically address the dead-ends and intermediaries in the evolutionary process.

Edited November 20, 2015 by cinepro

Daniel2 · November 20, 2015

Read Section 132 carefully for example. Plural marriage isn't even mentioned until way down in the chapter. Most of it is talking about sealings and how crucial they are. Note what the New and Everlasting Covenant is: "All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations...." The Law of Abraham (plural marriage) is part of the N&E Covenant but is not the covenant. That is why it is not the doctrine but is the practice which is only implemented when the Lord commands it in mortality and is allowed but only under the N&E Covenant.

You know, Deborah, the point you make above is that "sealings" exist independent of "marriage," within Mormon doctrine... and that "ALL covenant, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations"--many of which are clearly NOT 'marriage'--may be eternal, when authorized by God.

That definitely seems to support the concept that someday, the church could accept the sealing of same-sex unions as non-"marriage"-titled "covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations"...

Just sayin'... Sorry for the side-comment--I know that isn't the topic of this thread.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Daniel2

JeremyOrbe-Smith · November 20, 2015

I've always been sorta confused about modern LDS reticence to embrace evolution, 'cause the way I read the King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith seems to say that God evolved. Which solves a lot of problems, but creates a lot, too, that we haven't even begun to explore. Most every supposedly-sophisticated argument in favor of the traditional God (the necessary Prime Mover, the explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, the origin of the supposed cosmological 'fine-tuning', etc., etc.) just don't work for LDS theology, so we shouldn't be surprised that the traditional religious response to evolution/death/atonement is simply irrelevant for our purposes. (A "signature in every cell" pointing to the One Absolute Ruler sounds a lot more like concentration camp tattoos to me than evidence of a loving parent.) LDS theology throws out the need for God to create everything from nothing, because spirit cannot be created or destroyed. In which case, God finds Himself in an existential quandary just like man does, because God is a man. He -- we -- have to create our own meaning, and teach each other out of the best books. God isn't an Absolute Ruler, He (and She, and They) are Gardeners, they are parents who aren't in control of every particle whirling around space, but love the coexisting intelligences they find themselves surrounded by.

The way I see it (contrary to many a priest), Adam and Eve were quite explicitly not the first people on the planet. (And if they were immortal until the Fall, then why would they need the magic fruit? The existence of fruit at all implies that death and concurrent sexual reproduction already existed, so I'm guessing Adam and Eve both had belly buttons.) Genesis 1:27 says "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created them." This seems to be talking about mankind in general, not two individuals named Adam and Eve in particular. There was a preexisting population long before Adam and Eve show up in chapter two, which is how Cain can find a wife who is not an unnamed sister, etc. The purpose of the Garden story seems to be a sort of Temple Text related to loss of Wisdom and other such arcana, and the Atonement/Reconciliation seems more about becoming reconciled/initiated with the ancestral God(s)/The Council by choosing to be peaceful servants of all fellow intelligences. So now we can start paying attention to deep time and genetics.

I don't even think evolution on this planet is "guided" in the sense of much external fiddling from on high, because that would limit the freedom of organisms. Evolution, randomness, chance - it seems to me that an inherent non-deterministic chaos basic to reality is the only way we could have anything resembling a "free will" at all, and evolution would be a necessity for that.

Here's where the fun sci-fi ecopoiesis starts. All organisms on earth are related at a genetic level and come from a common ancestor, right? So 4 billion years ago the oceans are seeded with terraforming archaebacteria (the cyanobacteria becomes symbiotically incorporated into all later plant life), and eventually the Great Oxygenation Event leads the way to a planetwide self-regulating biosphere. What happens is that the planet gives organisms a sort of stage to express a "choice" between symbiosis and parasitism - that is, organisms can decide to base their reproductive success on mutualism or predation. (Obviously I'm simplifying it into a more clearcut dichotomy, here.) The little squigglies in the RNA world join forces to eventually become multicellular life, and we eventually get dinosaurs and (after an extinction event or two) koala bears.

The fascinating thing is that it seems that on a planet with the mass/gravity of ours, with these particular elements, this far from the sun, etc., certain forms of life are likely to arise based on evolutionary pressures that select in favor of certain forms of convergent evolution. So, contrary to Gould (but still taking punctuated equilibrium and that sort of thing into account) bipedal creatures with grasping hands and binocular vision aren't particularly unlikely to arise, because many of their component parts have actually arisen many times - the tree-shape arises often in plants, just as the eye arises multiple times in many unrelated organisms. It's not that hominids will inevitably arise (see the chaos/freewill thing above), but it seems that there is a distinct ecological niche in which such organisms can eventually choose/select to inhabit with that archetypal morphology.

But if the seeds of life that grew here are not just local but in fact interstellar (Cosmic Ancestry/Panspermia), then such extremophiles had to have evolved in other environments/worlds. And if so, then we would be (um, very, very distantly) related to creatures on other worlds, whose pathway of chosen convergent evolution might mimic our own. Which is weird and freaky, but totally cool and Star Trek-y, too (though I admit that my geek cred is not up to snuff, as I haven't actually seen a single episode). The point being, if there are any anthropomorphic toenailed Gods out there, their bodies had to have evolved, too - which disproves neither evolution, nor Gods (er, depending on how you define those things, anyway - the monotheistic omni-everything Philosopher's God is out, but He was never really in in the first place, so that shouldn't bother us).

I guess my TLDR point is:

Edited November 20, 2015 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

JeremyOrbe-Smith · November 20, 2015

Disclaimer: contra my deliberately-ironic member title, I do not believe that any of the evidence the Von Danikens and Sitchens of the world have presented is at all convincing. Ezekiel's Vision was not of a spaceship. The pyramids and giant statues and geoglyphs were built by good old-fashioned humans. The petroglyphs do not show space suits. The Greys are not involved in cattle mutilations, crop circles, or Roswell. Funny lights in the sky are generally not actually UFOs. The face on Mars isn't actually a face. The Nazca skulls are just unfortunate fashion victims. The abductees are misinterpreting their memories. The Masonic Reptilian Annunaki Illuminati is not infiltrating the guv'ment. Cthulhu is not calling.

... not that what I believe is any less weird. But still.

Five Solas · November 20, 2015

Nobody seems to get this is for real.

"Literally true" is never literally true. It can't be. THAT is what no one gets.

Reality IS "virtual reality". Some day that will be totally obvious to everyone. You are the camera man/ animator and you are writing the script but it is all a VR game.

That's why VR is so popular and addictive. For all practical purposes your brain thinks it IS "real" because to your brain it is! And what else do you have?

And this is godhood- organizing your own world from matter unorganized. We all do it but the Boss does it better.

Think about it. That is the only way one can logically see Joseph's vision as "real", but it was as real as anything because reality is what we make of it.

That is essentially why intellectually I am LDS

It would almost be worth a trip to Utah to hear you in your ward's "Fast & Testimony" meeting. I imagine it going like this--"I'd like to bear my testimony, I know the Church is unfalsifiable..."

;0)

--Erik

PS. And "literal" is such a popular word amongst LDS leadership, e.g., "I testify that Jesus Christ is the literal, living

Son of our literal, living God..." So you're certainly right about an awful lot of people not getting it.

mfbukowski · November 20, 2015

Do I dare ask what any of this has to do with the topic?
All I'm saying is that classical Mormon Doctrine--the abstract theoretical model of where we came from, why are we here, and where are we going--doesn't seem to be compatible with the theory of Evolution--the well-defined (and yet still abstract in the way that all scientific knowledge is abstract) scientific theory that ties together the genetic relationships between living things and robustly explains why the living world is the way it is.
A big inconsistency is with the claim that there was no death before the fall, that the fall brought death into the world, and that the atonement will fix the problem of death. But perhaps the biggest problem is the physical relationship between us and God. The theory of Evolution, and all of biology, really, robustly shows that we are an intrinsic part of the world, which has always been in the "fallen" state that we now see; we are a part of this world, and we are directly related to all forms of life here. That being the case, in what way could we be related to an extraterrestrial God of flesh and bones?
As an example of what I'm getting at, consider this question: does God have toenails? Toenails on humans don't perform any actual necessary function, but they are there because we evolved from animals that had useful claws on their back feet. When we evolved into homo sapiens, our claws evolved into useless toenails. That's were we got our toenails. Are we to believe that God--a glorified being from another planet--has toenails too?
If we believe that human beings came about by a process of evolution, it gives us a robust, evidence-based explanation for where we came from. But that explanation seriously calls into question the nature of God and our relationship with God. Some people propose something called, "Guided Evolution," with the idea being that God looks like us--toenails and all--and He pulled certain strings at certain times for the last 4 billion years so that evolution would eventually create beings like us with toenails like ours. However, that still leaves unanswered the question for why God has toenails in the first place?
My point is that if we accept evolution, there are either going to be inconsistencies between evolution and the Plan of Salvation, or the Plan of Salvation will need to be modified to something other than what Bruce R. McConkie thought the scriptures said.

Disagree. There are many interpretations

deli_llama · November 20, 2015

Just once, I would like to see someone start a thread on "evolving" Mormon doctrine that begins by quoting the formal and authoritative definition of what is, and is not to be considered doctrine.
[...]
Notice that building on either more or less than this constitutes a dangerous place upon which to build one's faith, or non-faith, as the case may be.
FWIW
Kevin Christensen
Bethel Park, PA

So, a while ago you said I could pick your brain, and now I will. Actually, I am willing to pick anyone's brain that might have some insight.

I appreciate Kevin pointing this out.

I have been trying to wrap my brain around our constant use of the word doctrine in ways that don't seem to reflect the admonition in the scriptures you quoted. Part of me wonders if it is just lazy language usage, or maybe even linguistic evolution. Or do we have some level of ignorance regarding what doctrine is? It is still a concern I have, because if we are being lazy in how we use the word doctrine, and not even noticing that we are, then might we be harming our progress and spiritual evolution? Likewise, if it is linguistic changes that has occurred over time, then don't we still end up watering down the Lord's instruction of what he says is his doctrine? If this mass of what we call "doctrines" aren't really doctrines, then what are they? Lines and precepts? Principles? Is there any other way to express this better, or words we can use that are better? I ask because it is something that has been on my mind often lately. I feel we might (have) become somewhat blasé in observance of what the Lord's doctrine(s) are and the value he places on his doctrine. I just don't know really.

mfbukowski · November 20, 2015

It would almost be worth a trip to Utah to hear you in your ward's "Fast & Testimony" meeting. I imagine it going like this--"I'd like to bear my testimony, I know the Church is unfalsifiable..."
;0)
--Erik
PS. And "literal" is such a popular word amongst LDS leadership, e.g., "I testify that Jesus Christ is the literal, living
Son of our literal, living God..." So you're certainly right about an awful lot of people not getting it.

I'm not in Utah.

Stick to your solas.

Zakuska · November 20, 2015

Not to side track the thread... But one of the doctrines I feel has changed over time is women ability to give healing blessing with concecrated oil thereby stunting our wonderful sisters spiritual growth.

Evolving Mormon Doctrine

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content