Is belief in the 'current' Church more believable?

[_jon]

What I mean by the OP is that if we were to ignore/discount/forget the history of the Church's beginnings etc and just measure our belief against the current doctrines, policies and practices is it something you could then believe in?

I guess the question equally applies to current believers and non believers. Would you as a believer find it harder if you had to discount everything older than your lifetime? Or for current non-believers is it just the history of the Church that causes difficulty for you?

So, based solely on the 'present' is it more or less believable?

[_Cardinal Biggles]

Definitely easier to believe in if you throw the past away.

There are some contemporary problems with the COJCOLDS, though. Its corporatism and its unnecessary involvement in political issues rank high among those problems, IMHO. Its stance on illegal immigration is screwy too, though some would disagree. It could stand to re-vamp its missionary program to become simultaneously more effective and less irritating.

[_bcspace]

I have little problem with the past or present in this regard.

[_LDS truthseeker]

They would still have to get away from the notion of a modern-day prophet - as the prophets don't seem to do anything prophetic these days.

[_moksha]

That which makes sense is always easier to believe.

[_bcspace]

Other than an initial 10-15 year period of restoring the doctrine, not much seems to have changed on that front (D&C 138). That descendents of Cain were denied the priesthood is still doctrine and plural marriage is also still doctrine.

[_Buffalo]

Other than an initial 10-15 year period of restoring the doctrine, not much seems to have changed on that front (D&C 138). That descendents of Cain were denied the priesthood is still doctrine and plural marriage is also still doctrine.

You need to get hip with the current denials. "We don't know why" blacks were denied the priesthood now. And you'd have an awefully hard time connecting black people to Cain, even if Cain were a real person, without connecting the Jews to Cain as well.

[_bcspace]

You need to get hip with the current denials. "We don't know why" blacks were denied the priesthood now.

Like I said, it's still doctrine. Your statement changed nothing. We have not said (and likely never will) that a mistake was made in denying descendents of Cain the priesthood.

And you'd have an awefully hard time connecting black people to Cain, even if Cain were a real person, without connecting the Jews to Cain as well.

I think it could be said that problems did arise in identifying such descendents. But such wouldn't have any effect on the actual doctrine.

[_Buffalo]

You need to get hip with the current denials. "We don't know why" blacks were denied the priesthood now.

Like I said, it's still doctrine. Your statement changed nothing. We have not said (and likely never will) that a mistake was made in denying descendents of Cain the priesthood.

And you'd have an awefully hard time connecting black people to Cain, even if Cain were a real person, without connecting the Jews to Cain as well.

I think it could be said that problems did arise in identifying such descendents. But such wouldn't have any effect on the actual doctrine.

The brethren have proclaimed publicly that they have no idea why blacks were denied the priesthoods, and that previous reasons were folk doctrine. You'd better head down to the COB and straighten them out.

[_bcspace]

The brethren have proclaimed publicly that they have no idea why blacks were denied the priesthoods, and that previous reasons were folk doctrine. You'd better head down to the COB and straighten them out.

Statements on the reasons, right or wrong, don't change the fact that it's still doctrine that descendents of Cain were denied the priesthood. It has not been stated that this in and of itself was wrong. Just that certain opinions as to why are wrong.