Doctrinal Amendments . What Is the Correct Term?

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I absolutely believe as do most other non-LDS Christians I know that revelation is on-going. As I said in an earlier post that is why we look so earnestly for God's will. I believe that general revelation is all around us - ubiquitous. I believe that special revelation still occurs, however with much less frequency. Hasn't it been years since any LDS leader has had a special revelation? I am not sure we are as far apart on that subject as both LDS and non-LDS leaders think. I hope this helps explain what I was saying. 

I've tried to make this point before. I don't see the LDS claim to on-going or continuing revelation as unique. Definitions differ, but on a practical level it seems like LDS and Catholics both believe in the same thing: a church that is led by inspiration. It can be a little underwhelming, honestly, when I hear the word "revelation" used to things such as changing to a 2 hour meeting, changing missionary age requirements, policy changes in the handbook, etc. That is stuff that the Pope and the bishops do all the time, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who we believe leads and protects Holy Mother Church.

Revelation from a modern prophet sounds much loftier than the actual examples of it. In practice, it seems to be what most Christians believe.

[Navidad]

27 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

My kids are mad at me.  As they grow, I impose new rules, and relax old rules.  

In other news, people are still having problems with understanding that God is our Father.

My example of this is as follows: In our home growing up our practice was that we could not watch TV on Sundays. The doctrine behind it was the keeping of the Sabbath. We kept it by not playing sports, no roughhousing, and no TV on Sunday. For both of my older sister's experiences in our home, that was the doctrine and the practices based on it. In the sixties my father discovered "I've Got a Secret" and "What's my Line?" on TV on Sunday night after church. So after that we were allowed to watch TV on Sunday. Was that a change in doctrine or in practice? Good question.

When I was little, all faithful Mennonite women had to wear prayer coverings all day - everywhere. The doctrine came from Paul's admonitions. Then it changed, they had to wear them only at church. Some still wore them all the time however. Then it changed again and very few women wore coverings to church. Today a few wear them all the time, some wear them to church, and many never wear them at all. Is that a change in practice or doctrine? I would suggest it is a change in how the doctrine is interpreted; therefore it is a change in the doctrine. Others might come to a different conclusion. It is the same as the question about Coca-Cola in the Word of Wisdom. Go back far enough and it is a question about wine in the sacrament in the church. Did the doctrine change or the practice? I would suggest that reasonable people would answer those in different way. When the LDS concept of pre-mortal spirits was placed in D&C that was a change in doctrine in that a new doctrine was added - certainly a change, no?  I like the idea of "continuing revelation," however I think by its very nature, it brings about a change in doctrine. New doctrine is changed doctrine is it not? What it probably is not, is a big deal! I am just trying to find common terminology - the one great challenge of communication between LDS and non-LDS Christians! 

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There are some including me who believe we have no Doctrine.

What we have is continuing revelation.

Instead of Orthodoxy we have orthopraxis.

The deal is we believe in prophets. If one actually believes in Prophets, they are equal in status to the old prophets like Isaiah Etc.

There is no need for the old Prophets, when and we ourselves can receive personal revelation as to what is true and what is not true.

It's quite a different way of thinking than Catholicism or protestantism.

But of course that's what the Lord is telling ME because that is a lesson I need to learn.

I hesitate to say that we have no doctrine, but I do feel like we are indeed more orthopraxic than many other Christian religions where faith is emphasized over works.  But we don't really cast faith and orthodoxy to the side either.  I think we have found a fruitful balance between orthopraxis and orthodoxis.

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Sorry - it is probably more than one sentence. I have spent my whole life in and around Protestants - I don't know of any who don't believe that non-essential doctrines (as defined by each group - as an Evangelical I recognize very few as essential) don't change and that revelation is not on-going." That was my original attempt.    What I am saying is I have lived, studied, preached, taught, and ministered in and around Protestant groups my whole life. That is a fact, however keep in mind that many Mennonites do not consider themselves Protestants in a reformational sense, but in a restorational sense.  I don't know any Protestant groups that teach that non-essential practices or doctrines don't or haven't changed over time. As an Evangelical, I believe that much of what we call doctrine is non-essential to salvation. I believe very few doctrines are essential for salvation. Very few. My belief is that justification comes by faith. It is up to Christ to some day judge that faith; not for me to do. Hence I have no problem accepting my LDS friends as justified as fully as I, or any other Christian is. I believe in a wideness in God's mercy. I also believe we often confuse practices, culture, and doctrine. They can easily be all mixed up. Often doctrine comes about as a result of cultural changes or transformation. I believe this happens in all Christian groups including mine and yours. The change in 1890 was huge. The church debated for some time whether Woodruff's manifesto was doctrine, and certain elements of mormondum still debate it. I probably am a sociological, historical, theological kind of guy! I think all three have an impact on how we define and create doctrine and doctrinal changes. I admire the writing of R. Laurence Moore. His writings on Mormonism and religious studies in general are very helpful. 

I absolutely believe as do most other non-LDS Christians I know that revelation is on-going. As I said in an earlier post that is why we look so earnestly for God's will. I believe that general revelation is all around us - ubiquitous. I believe that special revelation still occurs, however with much less frequency. Hasn't it been years since any LDS leader has had a special revelation? I am not sure we are as far apart on that subject as both LDS and non-LDS leaders think. I hope this helps explain what I was saying. 

Well the changes president Nelson has made are huge I think, with more to come.

Other than that I pretty much agree with every WORD of this post.

If there are any problems with any words in this post it is in their definition.

So for example I would say yes justification comes by faith and grace

On the other hand we are rewarded according to all that we can do.

And what is "justification?" And "salvation "

 Does that mean only Paradise, or deification?

These are the  words that always get us into trouble.

We will never know all the details of how God works and what is to be our Rewards, We might as well not even get into that.

It is all just semantic confusion in in the end.

On a personal note I'm glad you're back, and posting.

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I hesitate to say that we have no doctrine, but I do feel like we are indeed more orthopraxic than many other Christian religions where faith is emphasized over works.  But we don't really cast faith and orthodoxy to the side either.  I think we have found a fruitful balance between orthopraxis and orthodoxis.

Yeah but the price of orthodontics keeps rising

I have faith is that is an unchangeable eternal truth.

Is that justifiable?

 

[Navidad]

50 minutes ago, pogi said:

It has always been true that the vast majority of Latter-day Saints have been monogamists.

The teachings of one leader is not enough to constitute doctrine of the church (blood atonement and Adam-God theory, for example). 

Dr. B. Carmon Hardy, now deceased stated that his research indicated that up to 30% of LDS folks practiced plural marriage at one time (1850-1880 or so). I know the numbers vary, but more current estimates are much higher than older estimates. I have great respect for his writings on plural marriage and on the Mexican colonies. I know he had to leave BYU and utlimately resigned his membership, but he was a terrific writer and researcher. I would think some on this forum had the privilege of knowing him. I wish I had. He is certainly well thought of here in the colonies.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Navidad

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Dr. B. Carmon Hardy, now deceased stated that his research indicated that up to 30% of LDS folks practiced plural marriage at one time (1850-1880 or so). I know the numbers vary, but more current estimates are much higher than older estimates. I have great respect for his writings on plural marriage and on the Mexican colonies. I know he had to leave BYU and utlimately resigned his membership, but he was a terrific writer and researcher. I would think some on this forum had the privilege of knowing him. I wish I had. He is certainly well thought of here in the colonies.

That means that 70% ("the vast majority") didn't  

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah but the price of orthodontics keeps rising

I have faith is that is an unchangeable eternal truth.

Is that justifiable?

 

Only if you spell it TRVTH and pronounce it "teeth"

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah but the price of orthodontics keeps rising

I have faith is that is an unchangeable eternal truth.

Is that justifiable?

I feel that orthodoxy and orthopraxy are equally dependent upon faith.  Neither can be justified outside of faith.  One simply emphasizes "correct beliefs", while the other emphasizes "correct practices".  The question remains though, aren't correct practices only established on the foundation of correct beliefs?  How can one justify correct practices (orthopraxy) without the foundation of correct beliefs (orthodoxy)?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There is no need for the old Prophets, when and we ourselves can receive personal revelation as to what is true and what is not true.

I disagree. We cannot experience all there is in this life and reading and pondering the experiences of others can help us progress in ways we could not as easily without those references to dwell on, to test in our hearts and minds. 

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Dr. B. Carmon Hardy, now deceased stated that his research indicated that up to 30% of LDS folks practiced plural marriage at one time (1850-1880 or so). I know the numbers vary, but more current estimates are much higher than older estimates. I have great respect for his writings on plural marriage and on the Mexican colonies. I know he had to leave BYU and utlimately resigned his membership, but he was a terrific writer and researcher. I would think some on this forum had the privilege of knowing him. I wish I had. He is certainly well thought of here in the colonies.

Some interesting statistics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_membership_history

In 1850 the Church membership numbered at around 52,000 and in 1880 that rose to about 134,000.  You can figure how many 30% of those would be

 

[Navidad]

52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There is doctrine that does not change (e.g. Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God rose from the dead, effectuating the benefits of His atoning work; 3 Nephi 11; we are spirit children of God; the Book of Mormon is the word of God; etc.).

There is doctrine that only apparently changes because it is newly revealed and/or  is clarified over time (D&C 121:45; 2 Nephi 28:30).

While the words are sometimes used interchangeably, doctrine, principle, ordinance, covenant, application, policy, procedure and practice follow a hierarchy of changeability, with doctrine the least so. An ordinance like baptism or the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost is also a doctrine.

Hi my friend - Just curious - which of the words you have used in this post would you use for the idea that the LDS church is the only true and living church? I assume that is a doctrine in your scheme of things, correct? thanks. 

[Navidad]

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I believe that as we grow in our relationship with Christ, one moves away from the notion of authoritarian rules and more toward the imitation of Christ, which is virtually the definition of orthopraxy.

If one is able to live and interact with others as Christ did one is practicing orthopraxy by default, and definition.

At that point doctrinal differences become a blur of the philosophies of man.

I know we aren't supposed to say "amen" very much, but I offer a hearty "Amen" to your comment! Sometimes it is really hard for me not to say Amen after a beautiful song in a service! 

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Yesterday after Elder's Quorum I mentioned in a one-on-one conversation with a friend about LDS doctrine changing. He assured me that LDS doctrine never changes. My wife was waiting (semi-patiently) so I didn't want to get into a big discussion about it especially as the Spanish speaking ward was entering the chapel for their sacrament service. Now I bring it to you all . . . what is the correct term or terms to use about evolution in LDS doctrine caused by additional revelations or statements by leaders that can replace, amend, change (sorry), add to, or supplement existing or previously held doctrine? I don't want to use a term that is offensive or dismissed as my friend dismissed the word "change."

Perhaps the challenge is in the use of the word "doctrine?" It is complicated. Words like "new," "added," "amended," "changed," "lost" (blood atonement for example, which some will assert never was a doctrine), the manifestos, some of the Pratt/Young writings, etc. What is the best terminology to use when discussing these doctrinal variations in the church? I am not even sure how to ask the question without using certain terms! Is the removal of the Lectures on Faith from the D&C in 1921 by the Talmage Committee a doctrinal amendment? Weren't they the original "doctrine" part of the Doctrine and Covenants? Isn't their exclusion a doctrinal change, amendment, or ?????? Here I go again! 

I had a similar conversation on Sunday after I had made a comment to this effect in class, that what was once considered doctrine, is often viewed years later as culture/policy/tradition.  A careful view of history shows that we've had evolution/change/development on every major teaching within the church.  Epistemologically I take a position that we're never able to come to a complete or perfect knowledge of anything.  That is the essence of the mortal journey, we can only hope to be getting closer to the divine will, but its not a destination we reach, we're still on the journey.  Line upon line learning, ongoing revelation, all that stuff.  The great thing about embracing this concept is it really embraces a humility and a position of seeking for further understanding, rather than digging in and entrenching on any particular idea.  Learning and growth are the objectives.  

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I know we aren't supposed to say "amen" very much, but I offer a hearty "Amen" to your comment! Sometimes it is really hard for me not to say Amen after a beautiful song in a service! 

You can say it pretty much as much as you want to, as long as you don't say it too often.   At the end of a talk or song would generally be just fine, even though you might and probably would get some people who would look at you funny because they're not accustomed to that.

Lots of other people would smile and feel lit was totally appropriate, though, as long as you said it at appropriate time.  And some might even join in, inspired by your display, and there would be nothing at all that would be wrong with that.

Some people are just shy, sometimes, or not very vocal.  And that would be fine, too.  It's not as if people are supposed to say it, but it would be fine and totally appropriate for people who said it at an appropriate time.

 Hallelujah!  Praise the Lord!  Amen and Amen!

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend - Just curious - which of the words you have used in this post would you use for the idea that the LDS church is the only true and living church? I assume that is a doctrine in your scheme of things, correct? thanks. 

Yes, I would say that is a doctrine, though it is more completely stated as, "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually."

[Navidad]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

That means that 70% ("the vast majority") didn't  

I didn't mean to come across like I was debating you about the percentage. I am simply expressing my admiration for Dr. Hardy and his writing. His article "Lying for the Lord" was really enlightening to me. His monograph entitled "Polygamy, Mormonism and Me" was so well-written. His books on polygamy are among the best as are his writings on the Mexican colonies. I am all wrapped up in preparing for my talks on mormon fundamentalism this summer and fall. It is such a complicated subject. I am bound to offend someone no matter what I say.

As a Non-LDS Christian historian I am not interested in choosing sides over who has the correct idea of the priesthood and authority among the various groups or the mother church. It is not my role to pass judgment or offer opinion on any of that. If I did I would offer my Mennonite perspective and that would get me in big trouble with all my LDS listeners, and move me into a theological debate that is not part of my role as a historian. Many LDS folks who have written about mormon fundamentalism have spent time showing how these splinter groups are wrong. That isn't my topic or interest. My topic is to discuss how they are interrelated and interwoven, specifically from common roots in the soil of the Mexican colonies. I am researching all of this from 1885 right up to the November murders not far from here. There is so very much misinformation out there. So yes, 70% is the vast majority and I apologize if I came across in a manner I did not intend. 

[Navidad]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I would say that is a doctrine, though it is more completely stated as, "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually."

Of course that is the whole quote. Without wanting to get the thread off track - I have always thought it interesting that I have never heard a talk about the last phrase in that verse. Those words and their meaning are so important - "speaking unto the church collectively and not individually." This was a 1831 revelation, very soon after the church was founded. There were not many in the church at this point in time. There were even fewer wards, branches, or sites at that time. I would like to offer a hermeneutic that suggests that Christ was saying that "the only true and living church" with which he was well-pleased was the collective Christian church - the great Christian community which in 1831 was pretty robust. That makes sense with the notation that He was speaking "unto the church collectively (the larger Christian church as a whole) and not individually (the tiny church that had just been founded some short months before)! How could the word "collectively" make any sense in a 1831 LDS church context? Context and chronology are important, no? 

OK, I didn't think anyone would agree with me! 😃

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

That makes sense with the notation that He was speaking "unto the church collectively (the larger Christian church as a whole) and not individually (the tiny church that had just been founded some short months before)

LDS friends, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that LDS do not really have an ecclesiology. To them, "the Church" refers solely to the LDS religion and organization, without belief in a greater Christian "church."

In Catholicism, the Catholic Church is made up of 24 churches. I remember thinking how weird that sounded when I first learned it, until I read up a little on Catholic ecclesiology.

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Of course that is the whole quote. Without wanting to get the thread off track - I have always thought it interesting that I have never heard a talk about the last phrase in that verse. Those words and their meaning are so important - "speaking unto the church collectively and not individually." This was a 1831 revelation, very soon after the church was founded. There were not many in the church at this point in time. There were even fewer wards, branches, or sites at that time. I would like to offer a hermeneutic that suggests that Christ was saying that "the only true and living church" with which he was well-pleased was the collective Christian church - the great Christian community which in 1831 was pretty robust. That makes sense with the notation that He was speaking "unto the church collectively (the larger Christian church as a whole) and not individually (the tiny church that had just been founded some short months before)! How could the word "collectively" make any sense in a 1831 LDS church context? Context and chronology are important, no? 

OK, I didn't think anyone would agree with me! 😃

That interpretation has ramifications based on the context given in the first part of the verse:

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have ^apower to lay the foundation of this ^bchurch, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of ^cdarkness, the only true and living ^dchurch upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well ^epleased, ^fspeaking unto the church collectively and not individually

...where Joseph Smith et. al. were directed and authorized to lay the foundation of revealed and enlightened Christendom going forward, which in a sense I suppose is what was meant... 

That interpretation would also allow that the Lord intended this message for all Christendom, from verse 1:

1 ^aHearken, O ye people of my ^bchurch, saith the voice of him who dwells on high, and whose ^ceyes are upon all men; yea, verily I say: Hearken ye people from afar; and ye that are upon the islands of the sea, listen together.

The entire revelation then places a great deal of responsibility upon all Christendom to adopt the restoration that is presented and promised in it.

Edited February 24, 2020 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

According to the church website these are the main doctrines of the church

1. Godhead
2. Plan of Salvation
3. Atonement of Jesus Christ
4. Dispensation, Apostasy, and Restoration
5. Prophets and Revelation
6. Priesthood and Priesthood Keys
7. Ordinances and Covenants
8. Marriage and Family
9. Commandments

How these doctrines are lived (policies) may change a little depending on the times and needs of the members of the church and the world.

Church teachings related to this list have changed repeatedly over the decades.

Whether that changes doctrine is dependent on how we are defining doctrine I suppose.

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

LDS friends, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that LDS do not really have an ecclesiology. To them, "the Church" refers solely to the LDS religion and organization, without belief in a greater Christian "church."

In Catholicism, the Catholic Church is made up of 24 churches. I remember thinking how weird that sounded when I first learned it, until I read up a little on Catholic ecclesiology.

Typically "the Church" does mean the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but we also accept that "there are save two churches only; only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil" (1Nephi 14:10) in a much broader sense, which goes well beyond Christendom in both cases.

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

According to the church website these are the main doctrines of the church

1. Godhead
2. Plan of Salvation
3. Atonement of Jesus Christ
4. Dispensation, Apostasy, and Restoration
5. Prophets and Revelation
6. Priesthood and Priesthood Keys
7. Ordinances and Covenants
8. Marriage and Family
9. Commandments

How these doctrines are lived (policies) may change a little depending on the times and needs of the members of the church and the world.

Church teachings related to this list have changed repeatedly over the decades.

Whether that changes doctrine is dependent on how we are defining doctrine I suppose.

At least the requirement to have these basic doctrines has not changed. How we live them has changed for a few of them, but I don't think that means the basic core definition of them has changed. 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

LDS friends, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that LDS do not really have an ecclesiology. To them, "the Church" refers solely to the LDS religion and organization, without belief in a greater Christian "church."

In Catholicism, the Catholic Church is made up of 24 churches. I remember thinking how weird that sounded when I first learned it, until I read up a little on Catholic ecclesiology.

I can see how we could consider there to be a greater Christian church that includes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereafter referred to as TCOJCOLDS.  TCOJCOLDS is our Lord's church for latter-day saints, and our Lord's church in other times in the past included those who lived in those other time periods.  Our Lord's church which he organized during his mortal ministry, for example, with those he appointed as apostles and leaders of those members.  And his Church which included Adam and Eve and Enoch and Noah and Melchizedek and Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Moses and Joshua and Isaiah and all of those other people who spoke for him and directed the work for him in those times in which they lived.  It was all the same Church that we (LDS) are members of now,  and there was only one way to become a member of it, which was through obedience to the principles and ordinances of the gospel including faith, repentance, baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost from men who were authorized by our Lord to administer in those ordinances and teach the gospel truth.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Ahab

[MiserereNobis]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And his Church which included Adam and Eve and Enoch and Noah and Melchizedek and Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Moses and Joshua and Isaiah and all of those other people who spoke for him and directed the work for him in those times in which they lived.  It was all the same Church that we (LDS) are members of now,  and there was only one way to become a member of it, which was through obedience to the principles and ordinances of the gospel including faith, repentance, baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost from men who were authorized by our Lord to administer in those ordinances and teach the gospel truth.

Just to clarify, is it the official LDS position that all of those people you mentioned were baptized and given the Holy Ghost? Or is that just your interpretation?