Scott Lloyd Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: I though that baptism was a good example, since it's changed in how it's both understood and practiced in the church from how it used to be. In the last 100 years?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Yes, as has the understanding of the nature and roles of the Godhead. In the last 100 years?
jkwilliams Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: In the last 100 years? She didn't say 100 years, did she? I don't think baptism has changed in the last 100 years, either.
Pete Ahlstrom Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: In the last 100 years? Hasn't baptism changed since Joseph Smith's day when they would get baptized a lot of times? (don't know if this was already mentioned but that seems to be a change)
Scott Lloyd Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: She didn't say 100 years, did she? I don't think baptism has changed in the last 100 years, either. No, she didn't say it. Hope_for_Things did in his initial challenge (scroll up and see one of my most recent posts wherein I quote him). What changes have occurred in "understanding of the nature and roles of the Godhead" in the last 100 years? Edited September 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
ALarson Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 22 minutes ago, bluebell said: I though that baptism was a good example, since it's changed in how it's both understood and practiced in the church from how it used to be. I agree. That discussion on the other thread has been interesting.... 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Hasn't baptism changed since Joseph Smith's day when they would get baptized a lot of times? (don't know if this was already mentioned but that seems to be a change) The arbitrary time period that was given was 100 years. Has baptism changed since 1917?
ALarson Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 (edited) 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: No, she didn't say it. Hope_for_Things did in his initial challenge (scroll up and see one of my most recent posts wherein I quote him). So you're ok with admitting that doctrines have changed, but just not in the last 100 years? To be accurate regarding changes over the years, I'd imagine the discussion should be opened up to since the church was organized. Edited September 22, 2017 by ALarson 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Just now, ALarson said: I agree. That discussion on the other thread has been interesting.... What changes have occurred in baptism in the last 100 years? Has anybody addressed that?
jkwilliams Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: No, she didn't say it. Hope_for_Things did in his initial challenge (scroll up and see one of my most recent posts wherein I quote him). I thought it was originally since 1870.
ksfisher Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Seems to me one has to balance feeding the poor with wisely managing the church's money. Maybe the answer is for people to be more generous with their fast offerings. Feeding the poor is a little more complicated than this. One worry I have is that the more assistance that is given to people, whether it's churches or charities or the government doing the giving, is that this just allows some people to spend more money on beer and cigarettes (or worse). Give someone $100 worth of food and that frees up $100 of their income to spend of their addictions. I do agree that we can all be more generous with our fast offerings. We had a family meeting, my wife and I and our three children still at home, about a year ago. We told our children how much a month we donated to the fast offering fund and then proposed increasing this by about 50%. We were pleasantly surprised that all our children agreed with this.
jkwilliams Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: Feeding the poor is a little more complicated than this. One worry I have is that the more assistance that is given to people, whether it's churches or charities or the government doing the giving, is that this just allows some people to spend more money on beer and cigarettes (or worse). Give someone $100 worth of food and that frees up $100 of their income to spend of their addictions. I do agree that we can all be more generous with our fast offerings. We had a family meeting, my wife and I and our three children still at home, about a year ago. We told our children how much a month we donated to the fast offering fund and then proposed increasing this by about 50%. We were pleasantly surprised that all our children agreed with this. I agree that one should be wise in how one gives assistance.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I thought it was originally since 1870. From my post of 31 minutes ago: Quote The challenge from Hope_for_Things was this: Quote Quote Pick a doctrine, and I would put money on any doctrine you pick that in 100 years from now it will have changed substantively. Doctrines evolve, get discarded, are deemphasized, new ideas emerge. Change will happen whether you want it to or not, and history our guide that this is true. Feeling that something will "never change" is delusional thinking. In response, I listed several core doctrines that I believe haven't changed in the last 100 years (that was his arbitrary time period). There has been some quibbling here over some of them, but I stand by my list as being a selection of core doctrines that are not subject to change. You can cherry pick some quirky things like Adam-God (which wasn't no my list) and you can quibble over whether this or that isolated quote constitutes doctrine, but the core remains the same, including the doctrines pertaining to the eternity of a family unit and its associated definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Edited September 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
ALarson Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What changes have occurred in baptism in the last 100 years? Has anybody addressed that? I haven't read them all, but it's a good discussion that has evolved into other doctrinal changes (temple, etc). as well. But once again, do you believe doctrinal changes have occurred, just not in the past 100 years? Edited September 22, 2017 by ALarson
jkwilliams Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: From my post of 31 minutes ago: In response, I listed several core doctrines that I believe haven't changed in the last 100 years (that was his arbitrary time period). There has been some quibbling here over some of them, but I stand by my list as being a selection of core doctrines that are not subject to change. You can cherry pick some quirky things like Adam-God (which wasn't no my list) and you can quibble over whether this or that isolated quote constitutes doctrine, but the core remains the same, including the doctrines pertaining to the eternity of a family unit and its associated definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The definition of marriage for the church is "between a man and women," is it not?
bluebell Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: In the last 100 years? No, but not that much more than 100 years. I believe that re-baptism ended in 1897. 1
jkwilliams Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 1 minute ago, bluebell said: No, but not that much more than 100 years. I believe that re-baptism ended in 1897. Yes, 100 years seems an arbitrary cutoff.
JulieM Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Yes, 100 years seems an arbitrary cutoff. Well, let's open it up to back to 1830. We can do that in a discussion, right? What doctrines have changed since then on the list? (Or parts of doctrines and teachings.) Edited September 22, 2017 by JulieM
Scott Lloyd Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 18 minutes ago, ALarson said: So you're ok with admitting that doctrines have changed, but just not in the last 100 years? I just want you and others to recognize what the initial challenge was and what the context of my response was. I don't think that has been happening. Quote To be accurate regarding changes over the years, I'd imagine the discussion should be opened up to since the church was organized. Well, to be altogether accurate, I think there has to be an intelligent recognition that there was a formative period in Church history during which God's people were learning, "line upon line, precept upon precept," and that there came a time when doctrinal understanding became settled and relatively settled, and that there hasn't been a great deal of change since then. This recognition is particularly important when evaluating claims such as what stemelbow made, to the effect that a Church member from 100 years ago would not recognize the Church as it is today, or that 100 years into the future, the Church would have been altered so drastically that we living today would not recognize it. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: The definition of marriage for the church is "between a man and women," is it not? Yes. Isn't that what I said?
jkwilliams Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Yes. Isn't that what I said? No, it isn't what you said.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: No, but not that much more than 100 years. I believe that re-baptism ended in 1897. Hope_for_Things said doctrines in the Church will have changed substantially in 100 years. In response, I said they haven't changed a whole lot in the last 100 years. So what happened before then is really outside the scope of our conversation. He asked for just one example. I gave him a whole list (baptism was on it). But I stipulated the last 100 years as the time period. Edited September 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: No, it isn't what you said. What do you think I said?
jkwilliams Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: What do you think I said? You said "between a man and a woman."
Scott Lloyd Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 7 minutes ago, JulieM said: Well, let's open it up to back to 1830. We can do that in a discussion, right? What doctrines have changed since then on the list? (Or parts of doctrines and teachings.) You can do it if you like, but recognize it would be outside the scope of what Hope_for_Things said to me and what I responded to him.
Recommended Posts