If God is unchanging, why does doctrine change?

[_Mephitus]

This could be tied into the thread i created on revelation. But using the citation from the Bible (i forget the referance since i tossed my Bible) that god is the everlasting and unchanging force in the universe. For what reasons can we find for the changing doctrinal stances on many things. I can completely understand the ideals of revelation to ADD doctrine to further the understanding of the divine. But why would things that are supposed to be the everlasting doctrines of god be changed completely from their original standings and still be considered eternal? (such examples include the adam/god doctrine, curse of cain, temple ceremony, the short lived application of the preisthood to women, role of the prophet, etc)

[_Dr. Shades]

(such examples include the adam/god doctrine, curse of cain, temple ceremony, the short lived application of the preisthood to women, role of the prophet, etc)

Simple. If doctrine changes, then it was either A) merely a policy, or B) only his opinion. To whit:

. . . the adam/god doctrine, . . .

B) only his opinion.

. . . curse of cain, . . .

B) only his opinion.

. . . temple ceremony, . . .

A) merely a policy.

. . . the short lived application of the preisthood to women, . . .

A) merely a policy.

. . . role of the prophet . . .

B) only his opinion.

[P.S. If you don't believe me, just ask MA&D. They'll happily verify each of the above.]

[_Mephitus]

yeah, that is a rather good excuse that can be used. I've started to wonder if anything within Mormonism is "holy" enough to survive such a stance. Maybe gaz or wade can put this forward.(anyone else feel free also) Are there any doctrines of the Mormon church that you feel are above de-canonizing unlike that which has been done to previously sacred doctrines? (don't cop out on me with simple ones like "Jesus saves", im talking doctrines unique to Mormonism)

[_harmony]

yeah, that is a rather good excuse that can be used. I've started to wonder if anything within Mormonism is "holy" enough to survive such a stance. Maybe gaz or wade can put this forward.(anyone else feel free also) Are there any doctrines of the Mormon church that you feel are above de-canonizing unlike that which has been done to previously sacred doctrines? (don't cop out on me with simple ones like "Jesus saves", im talking doctrines unique to Mormonism)

The canonization process is what creates scripture; everything in the canon is doctrinal. Some things have been de-canonized (the Lectures of Faith for one). Adam-God was never canonized, and thus was not doctrine. Much of the endowment is canonized and thus is doctrinal. The early church leaders were sloppy about canonization, and somethings that were doctrinal weren't canonized (like the restoration of the Melch priesthood and the priesthood ban).

[_guy sajer]

God's doctrine changes because, as we've learned on this board and elsewhere from Mormon apologists:

God has no fixed moral center. He is a pragmatic utility maximizer who uses the base morals, values, traditions, norms, practices of human kind to pursue his agenda.

His agenda, moreover, appears to be to advance the peculiar interests of the nearly infinitesimally small portion of the human race whom he has selected as his "chosen people."

[_truth dancer]

What one needs to understand is just because something is scripture or doctrine, it does not mean it is true.

I misunderstood this important concept for some time.

In other words, prophets give their opinion, and the scriptures are just a reflection of these opinions. Nothing more.

If someone believes the scriptures or doctrine are actually true, or doctrine is true, then she/he is left with the problems of Adam and Eve, the Noachian flood, the Tower of Babel, Missouri as the Garden of Eden, Book of Abraham astronomy as reality, changingg scripture, altering temple rituals, etc. etc. etc.

However, if you go with the idea that doctrine, scripture, revelation, etc. etc. are really just different ways of saying a man is giving his opinion, then there really are no problems.

~dancer~

[_SatanWasSetUp]

. . temple ceremony, . . .
A) merely a policy.

I'vw heard that before from apologists. The temple ceremony can be changed because it is a procedure but the symbolism is the same. I wonder if the baptism procedure can be changed and it remain the same. For example, suppose in an area where water is not plentiful, they allowed sprinkling of water to count as baptism. The symbolism of washing is still the same just the procedure changed.

[_asbestosman]

yeah, that is a rather good excuse that can be used. I've started to wonder if anything within Mormonism is "holy" enough to survive such a stance. Maybe gaz or wade can put this forward.(anyone else feel free also) Are there any doctrines of the Mormon church that you feel are above de-canonizing unlike that which has been done to previously sacred doctrines? (don't cop out on me with simple ones like "Jesus saves", im talking doctrines unique to Mormonism)

How about the doctrine that this church is the only one authorized to exercise priesthood--indeed the only one with it--and that the priesthood is required in order to perform saving ordinances such as baptism.

But even more than that, if the church started saying that there is no need for temple ordinances, that the Book of Mormon is not the word of God and that Jesus didn't visit the Americas at about 33 AD, I would say that one may as well suppose the church is not true and become Catholic or protestant instead.

[_moksha]

As the Universe and all else change, why would God not change as well?

[_Mephitus]

But even more than that, if the church started saying that there is no need for temple ordinances, that the Book of Mormon is not the word of God and that Jesus didn't visit the Americas at about 33 AD, I would say that one may as well suppose the church is not true and become Catholic or protestant instead.

You know, you might be on to something. Along with the previous post on a possible change in babtismal ordinance. I guess since we said it here first, if/when it changes we can have the "i told you so" rights.