Baptism - Doctrinal Evolution

[Calm]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  Many refuse to acknowledge the changes from the past simply because they fear this means there will be change in the future (most specifically any acceptance of SSM from the church leaders).  To admit the doctrinal changes, changes in teachings from past leaders, and all the many policy changes over the years means an acknowledgement that more changes will very likely continue to occur.  

Then comes all of the debate over what really constitutes church doctrine.  But then, as far as I know, there is no official doctrine as of yet regarding the treatment of those involved in SSM.  That is still just a policy and those for sure have changed in the past.

I wonder if resistance to the idea of doctrinal change (as opposed to policy change) has increased in the last two years due to the arguments about potential changes of doctrine for same sex marriage or if people were already pretty set in their approach from  a decade or more before because of the ongoing discussion about the place in society of homosexuality or if it has always been pretty consistent due to the belief the Restoration means things are more or less identical (perhaps in different languages) to many (though they may define "identical" different,y than someone else).

[Avatar4321]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'd like to talk about the authority piece a little more.  As I understand the development of the priesthood doctrine within early Mormonism, priesthood authority did not come first, but rather the ordinance of baptism came before the priesthood authority theology.  This is evidenced in the earliest accounts and in the baptismal prayer as well where there are no references to priesthood, and in the BoM and early revelations.  This shows an evolution of the concept of authority and what is required for baptism specifically.  Thoughts?  

The restoration of the aaronic priesthood occurred directly so baptism could be performed again on the earth. How do you conclude that authority did not come first?

[Avatar4321]

Does anyone honestly believe that if Joseph, Brigham, or any other early saints was transported into the press that they would conclude this Church is a different Church than theirs based on our practice of baptism?

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

The restoration of the aaronic priesthood occurred directly so baptism could be performed again on the earth. How do you conclude that authority did not come first?

There are no contemporary accounts of the Aaronic Priesthood being received in 1829 by angels, all the accounts are years later and some of the early church insiders like David Whitmer and William McClellen say those accounts were never part of the early narrative.  

Did you read that essay I linked to?  I'm not introducing any new evidence, historians are well aware of this.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Does anyone honestly believe that if Joseph, Brigham, or any other early saints was transported into the press that they would conclude this Church is a different Church than theirs based on our practice of baptism?

I doubt that Baptism would be the first difference to cross their minds, I don't think anyone is suggesting that.  

Remember, you picked this topic.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I wonder if resistance to the idea of doctrinal change (as opposed to policy change) has increased in the last two years due to the arguments about potential changes of doctrine for same sex marriage or if people were already pretty set in their approach from  a decade or more before because of the ongoing discussion about the place in society of homosexuality or if it has always been pretty consistent due to the belief the Restoration means things are more or less identical (perhaps in different languages) to many (though they may define "identical" different,y than someone else).

This is an interesting idea.  I'm a strong believer that actions people and institutions take are within the context of culture, current events and are often in response to the direct actions of others.  

If it weren't for the Supreme Court decision I doubt the Nov. policy would exist today.  Perhaps the rhetoric of this doctrine never changing has been amped up due to the current events of the times.  

[Storm Rider]

On ‎9‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 7:04 PM, JLHPROF said:

Which brings up all kinds of other questions about eternal truths, eternal ordinances, and eternal laws.
Which elements are temporal and therefore changeable?  And which are eternal and unchanging?

Given how many changes have been made to the beliefs and practices of Mormonism over the decades finding eternal truths can be a challenge.

Interestingly, I have never had a problem with that i.e. it remains simple and easy. When I read the scriptures I tend to get the picture; when I read what the doctrine of the Church is I see no conflict. 

It is apparent that the concept of line upon line; precept upon precept is unknown to many on this site.  Many of the comments make me think of the ancient Jews who could not accept Jesus Christ. "How could Jesus come and teach a new gospel and change the Law of Moses" and still remain a Jew or even be a representative of God? The questions you ask; the statements you make are old, tired claims of humans that have gone astray relying on their vaunted intelligence while putting aside the Spirit, the scriptures, and any attempt to have an open mind, heart, and spirit. 

Don't you find it strange that humans seem to stay on a wheel; ever spinning and always asking the same types of questions. It would seem at some point that the doubting Thomases would stop and think about it.  Faith can be hard yet it can be as easy as snow falling a rain drops coming down.  It all depends on allowing God to guide and direct our lives.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is an interesting idea.  I'm a strong believer that actions people and institutions take are within the context of culture, current events and are often in response to the direct actions of others.  

If it weren't for the Supreme Court decision I doubt the Nov. policy would exist today.  Perhaps the rhetoric of this doctrine never changing has been amped up due to the current events of the times.  

I think this is the case, and I expand it to include the actions that I believe a living, responsive God takes to bring His children into His presence; He lovingly interacts with us where we are, individually and collectively, which includes our “telestial” cultural context. So when new situations arise, naturally He speaks.*

I would characterize Church statements on this (as with any other subject) as peaceable and not rhetorical (D&C 121:41-43).

*Your post is similar to this Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual, (2010): “The world is constantly changing. New and different problems and many variations of old problems continually challenge us. Our wise and loving Heavenly Father knows all things before they happen, and He reveals answers and solutions through His prophet as needed. In addition to interpreting and reaffirming existing scripture, a prophet acts as the agent through whom the Lord can give new scripture, according to the needs of the people. Speaking under the direction of the Holy Ghost, the living prophet’s words take precedence over other statements on the same issue. His inspired counsel is in harmony with the eternal truths in the standard works and is focused upon the needs and conditions of his day. Doctrines are eternal and do not change; however, the Lord, through His prophet, may change practices and programs, according to the needs of the people. The following examples illustrate this principle…” https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual/chapter-2-the-living-prophet-the-president-of-the-church?lang=eng

[Bobbieaware]

On 9/21/2017 at 7:12 PM, Bobbieaware said:

 

Deleated

Edited September 24, 2017 by Bobbieaware