William Schryver wrote:Nehor's got it right when he observes that Tszuki is just a few degrees past heterodox and moving towards heresy. Nice guy, though.
As far as the incessant refrain from some quarters that doctrine has changed, I would say that was has happened most of all is that the things that some people, or even lots of people believed to be doctrine -- those kinds of things have been renounced or moved away from over the years. I'm quite confident that if my grandfather were to come into our gospel doctrine class this Sunday, he would feel like it was the same church he knew back in the late 19th century, early 20th century (he was born in 1879). Yeah, there have been some doctrinal speculators/extremists through the years, and they have gathered around them cliques of devotees -- people like Orson Pratt, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R. McConkie. But their fringe ideas were never "doctrine" as I understand it.
As far as Brigham Young's "Adam/God" thing -- I think most people have simply misunderstood what he was trying to say. I think he was just trying to elaborate on his whole notion that God was a man -- an "Adam" -- during his mortal probation. But I don't really want to get into that on this message board. My point is that I don't even consider the Adam/God stuff as doctrine we've "moved away from."
I guess we'll have to disagree. To me it's clear that church doctrine has evolved, and some things, like Brigham Young's teachings on Adam, have indeed been jettisoned. And if Brigham had merely intended to say that God was a human on another earth, Orson Pratt (one of those doctrinal extremists) would not have opposed him, would he? The idea that God lived on an earth as a man and became exalted was standard LDS doctrine in the 19th century. That Orson Pratt and others so vehemently disagreed with Brigham suggests that your reading of Brigham is incorrect.
But either way, I don't much care what Brigham said or didn't. What I have come to understand is that people believe in what the church teaches here and now, not what it used to teach. That the two aren't the same is not important to most church members.
I think you misapprehend what the conflict was between Pratt and Young on this issue. It had to do more with Young's notions that God's progression was continuing -- He was an "Adam" and now He is God, but He continues to "progress." Pratt disagreed with that doctrine, not specifically with the notion that God was an Adam. But they were linked in his mind. Anyway, I don't really want to enter that particular discussion, but I would be interested in what other "doctrines" you believe have been changed. List a few examples. I might agree with you. Or I might not.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
William Schryver wrote:I think you misapprehend what the conflict was between Pratt and Young on this issue. It had to do more with Young's notions that God's progression was continuing -- He was an "Adam" and now He is God, but He continues to "progress." Pratt disagreed with that doctrine, not specifically with the notion that God was an Adam. But they were linked in his mind. Anyway, I don't really want to enter that particular discussion, but I would be interested in what other "doctrines" you believe have been changed. List a few examples. I might agree with you. Or I might not.
Like I said, what is important to most members is what the church teaches here and now. Changing doctrine is not an issue to me, as if there really is continuing revelation, doctrinal understanding should be evolving, should it not?
As for the Pratt-Young squabble, it's more complex than either of us want to get into. I don't really care. Cogs asked for a doctrine that had changed, and I think this is a clear case where it has. You disagree. No big deal.
Runtu wrote: The only official "doctrine" is contained in the canon.
Okay, what's considered canon? This can go on forever.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
rcrocket wrote:"Canon" is not really an LDS term, but to the extent it is used, it means the things contained within the authorized Quad. Some of the things therein are not approved revelations. (official declarations; chapter headings; footnotes). Canon changes when the church changes the publication contents. No more, no less.
Interestingly, the LDS canon does NOT contain the authorized KJV of the Bible. LDS canon omits the authorized marginal readings, which were dropped to save space. The marginal readings are as much a part of the original KJV as each individual verse.
"Doctrine" is more an etheral term. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism and Mormon Doctrine contain their own definitions, but they don't agree and don't necessarily have to.
I resort to the tried and true formula in the scriptures. You will only know the doctrine if you live the commandments. No more, no less.
rcrocket
That's pretty much how I see it and how it was drilled into me when I was a church employee. Doctrine is contained in the scriptures. Anything that is published by the church after 1970 is doctrinally consistent with the scriptures.
How the hell can we say that doctrine has changed or evolved, if we don't have a measuring stick (a list of what doctrine is)? For that matter, how can we say it hasn't changed?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Who Knows wrote:How the hell can we say that doctrine has changed or evolved, if we don't have a measuring stick (a list of what doctrine is)? For that matter, how can we say it hasn't changed?
Runtu wrote: That's pretty much how I see it and how it was drilled into me when I was a church employee. Doctrine is contained in the scriptures. Anything that is published by the church after 1970 is doctrinally consistent with the scriptures.
But I've been told that the talks in General Conference are scripture for the next 6 months. Does that literally mean they are only scripture for six months then they expire?
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
Runtu wrote: That's pretty much how I see it and how it was drilled into me when I was a church employee. Doctrine is contained in the scriptures. Anything that is published by the church after 1970 is doctrinally consistent with the scriptures.
But I've been told that the talks in General Conference are scripture for the next 6 months. Does that literally mean they are only scripture for six months then they expire?
I've heard that as well. But good luck trying to get an apologist to admit that they're anything remotely like "scripture."
Who Knows wrote:How the hell can we say that doctrine has changed or evolved, if we don't have a measuring stick (a list of what doctrine is)? For that matter, how can we say it hasn't changed?
Bingo. It's like nailing jell-o to the wall.
The whole Holy Ghost thing is kinda needed.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo