Change and Development in the LDS faith

[_Mephitus]

Yay!!!

Another response!!!!

Thanks for the laugh Sono Hito, I dunno....the church has changed and developed so much over the last 200 years. I doubt Joseph Smith would be able to relate to it, if he saw it now...

If only they told us it was all 'myth' in the first place, it might have helped huh. But still there's value in myth. I don't see the LDS faith disappearing, (other religions are probably as equally built on myth) and it is interesting to speculate on how it might change.....(to me anyway!!)

Mary

The question of whether or not Joseph Smith would accept the current incarnation of the LDS church has been something I've given some good thought to. There are MANY differences in doctrine, practice, scripture, ceremony, and church law since his death. The F-LDS would probly be closest to what he would accept. Maybe we should start a topic on this for further discussion.

[_Mephitus]

If the gospel was restored in its FULLNESS, why does it need to change?

It can not. That is a lie and one of those things that the church is NOT what it claims to be. Period.

It was not restored in its fullness if one single thing is altered for any reason. That would mean it was restored in its PARTIALITY. I'm sick of dear old mum saying, "The church was in its infancy in Joseph Smith's time"

WRONG!!! It was restored in its FULLNESS not its INFANCY. Nothing can change, or be added to it. So there is one proof for Wade.

Fullness is a lie! It has been altered since.

Good argument, i had not thought of it in that sense. Mind if i use it?

[_Mary]

Hi Maklelan,
Thanks for engaging me on this. I know Harmony has already addressed some of your responses, can I add some of my own?!

Just wondering how you would like to see the church develop in the next 10-20 years.

Do you think there will be any major cultural/doctrinal shifts as it moves mainstream, or do you think
that it's foundation claims will always hold it back?

Well, that's not a very objective view. I can already tell where you'll be going with this.

I do agree. It shows my bias. (I assume you are referring to my comments about 'the foundation claims will always hold it back) But I think
perhaps a consensus view outside of Mormonism would be that Joseph's stories can be accounted for in mostly naturalistic terms, indeed much
of the evidence seems to point that way.

I'd like to see it let go of the Book of Mormon as a historical document, and study it in the context of the time in which it emerged. (same for Book of Abraham)

But that would destroy the whole religion.

Like Harmony, I'm not so sure that it would, though you may be correct. If one day the membership were suddenly told that the Book of Mormon were probably inspired fiction, then perhaps some would walk, but if the idea were very gradually introduced then perhaps it would be easier to digest and accept.

I'd like to see women hold the priesthood along with men, becoming apostles, with maybe even a female prophet (though that one would probably be 50 years away)

I'd prefer to just let God control his church rather than let contemporary dogma's about the inequality of separate roles. While we're whining about what God does, though, I'd like to give birth to a child. I figure it'll happen in about fifty years. Stupid government better not try to get in the way of me trying to get my equal rights.

I'll take issue with you on this one Maklelan. Since you have read up much of early christian history, you'll be aware of the possible role of Mary Magdalene in the early church, (who may just have been an apostle) and of course the roles of the female prophets from the Old Testament. I'm not so sure that I am arguing from a position of contemporary dogma. I think it is more complex than that.

I'd like it to stop teaching that men and women must be married in order to achieve celestial glory.

But then thousands of men and women will not achieve celestial glory.

A judgement of course that I don't agree with. We really don't know at the end of the day.

I'd like to see a reasonbly paid ministry, so that 'bishops' can truly concentrate on their flock and on others (non-mormon) in the general community.

I'd rather the church remained a force for good inside and outside of the church.

Are you from SLC or Utah. I'm not. So I have a different perspective of how much the church engages or is involved with local communities.

I'd like it to come out of isolation and see its ministry enlarged to all peoples, Mormon or not, and whether they join or not.

That would totally undermine the authority of God.

Why? Jesus came to heal the sick not the well. (His supposed words, not mine)

I'd like to see the church step down from it's exclusive truth claims, and find a niche as another alternative in the
cornucopia of faiths that exist presently

Actually this took place during Joseph Smith's lifetime.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims to be the only true and living church upon the face of the earth today, with exclusive authority to act in God's name.

I'd like to see it becoming far more ecumenical as a result.

That would undermine the authority of God.

Are you referring to it becoming more ecumenical, or to it stepping down from its exclusive truth claims?
If you are referring to the church becoming more ecumenical, then why should its involvement and discussion with other religious groups lessen it's authority?

I'd like it to tone down the word of wisdom because it seems to encourage self-righteousness on such a flimsy foundation.

No, people enforcing their own fences upon others encourages self-righteousness. It's a good thing we work hard to help people avoid that habit.

You may be right on this one. It is a very subjective observation of watching mostly children, (with whom I have been greatly involved) who judge a smoker, for instance, to be committing a great evil. This attitude seemed to continue in to the Youth Program, and on in to YA's. I always found it deeply disconserting that a persons character should be judeged on whether they smoke or not. (For what it's worth, I don't, never have done)

I can dig up a few scriptures to support that if you like. Something along the lines of .....

It is not what goes into a man’s mouth that corrupts or defiles him, it is what comes out of his mouth that corrupts and defiles.

Jesus, was supposed to have said that...Make of it what you will.

I'd like it to stop requiring 10% tithing in order to go to the temple, and to start handing out the collection tin, so people can truly give in secret.

So this way your bishop won't know, but whoever sits next to you in church will? If you really don't want to pay tithing that much you're probably not going to enjoy the temple anyway.

Even Paul was careful not to rely on money for righteousness. I agree with Harmony here, if I interpret her correctly. Tithing as taught by the church is not necessarily what was taught in the New Testament. The widow's mite being a good example.

I'd like it to say that it was categorically wrong for those of skin colour to be withheld from the priesthood, without the excuses that it was understandable for the culture of the time. (same argument doesn't hold for polygamy for instance)

I've never heard that argument, but while we're at it, why don't we go yell at the Old Testament for denying the priesthood to everyone except Aaron's kids? Talk about nepitism. I'm outraged.

Well, as the old saying goes. Two wrongs don't make a right!!! But I would assume that Aaron's prodgeny may just have included those with more than average dark skin. We are talking very olive skinned people's anyway. Dark curly hair, dark eyes, dark skin. Pre the ban, I wonder if Jesus would have been allowed to hold the priesthood had he walked into the average American LDS church?

I'd like it to encourage the idea that Joseph was a complex, deeply flawed man, who with others still managed to produce something that has the capacity to do good.

I think we already do a pretty good job of encouraging that.

I kind of do sense this from the Fair and now Mad boards, from what the scholars argue anyway. But.....many of my friends who are active LDS have not heard of Bushman's tome, far less Van Wagoner, Grant Palmer or Dan Vogel. I guess it depends where you live.

[_Yoda]

While we're whining about what God does, though, I'd like to give birth to a child.

Sorry Mak, but I had to respond to this...and, sorry Miss Taken, for de-railing...I would LOVE to see ANY male go through labor and delivery of a child. They would definitely have new respect for women.

;)

OK...Back to the regularly scheduled programming here.

I do have some comments on the actual content of the thread I'll make later.

[_maklelan]

Hi Maklelan,
Thanks for engaging me on this. I know Harmony has already addressed some of your responses, can I add some of my own?!

Excellent.

I do agree. It shows my bias. (I assume you are referring to my comments about 'the foundation claims will always hold it back) But I think
perhaps a consensus view outside of Mormonism would be that Joseph's stories can be accounted for in mostly naturalistic terms, indeed much
of the evidence seems to point that way.

I find much of those arguments fail to account for several facts. People like Vogel assume a first hand account is a lie just because it supports supernatural events, and promote a fourth hand account over dozens of first and second hand accounts just because it is hunmanistic. I've talked with him about this, but we never seem to get anywhere. A lot of assumptions ahve to be made, too. We have to retroject into Joseph Smith qualities that he is never known to have had, like an uncanny memory and absolute literary genius. Too much has to be conjectured to make that approach fit, in my opinion.

Like Harmony, I'm not so sure that it would, though you may be correct. If one day the membership were suddenly told that the Book of Mormon were probably inspired fiction, then perhaps some would walk, but if the idea were very gradually introduced then perhaps it would be easier to digest and accept.

Perhaps.

I'll take issue with you on this one Maklelan. Since you have read up much of early christian history, you'll be aware of the possible role of Mary Magdalene in the early church, (who may just have been an apostle) and of course the roles of the female prophets from the Old Testament. I'm not so sure that I am arguing from a position of contemporary dogma. I think it is more complex than that.

The DaVinci Code is a work of fiction, and the ideas presented about Mary Magdalene are just a theory, and not a very good one, either. There's a difference between being influential and important, and holding the priesthood. No one said the priesthood is necessary for revelation.

A judgement of course that I don't agree with. We really don't know at the end of the day.

Fair enough.

Are you from SLC or Utah. I'm not. So I have a different perspective of how much the church engages or is involved with local communities.

I'm from Dallas, Texas, and we involve ourselves until the Baptists and Evangelicals won't let us anymore.

Why? Jesus came to heal the sick not the well. (His supposed words, not mine)

And that power is available to all, inside and out.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims to be the only true and living church upon the face of the earth today, with exclusive authority to act in God's name.

Yes, that is more clear, and I believe it is true. That's an argument for another day, though.

Are you referring to it becoming more ecumenical, or to it stepping down from its exclusive truth claims?
If you are referring to the church becoming more ecumenical, then why should its involvement and discussion with other religious groups lessen it's authority?

I was referring to ecumenical aspirations. We believe we are the only true church. To become a part of other organizations and endorse their claim to the authority of God undermines that claim.

You may be right on this one. It is a very subjective observation of watching mostly children, (with whom I have been greatly involved) who judge a smoker, for instance, to be committing a great evil. This attitude seemed to continue in to the Youth Program, and on in to YA's. I always found it deeply disconserting that a persons character should be judeged on whether they smoke or not. (For what it's worth, I don't, never have done)

I am humbled by your honesty. You're the first person I've seen so far even partially cede an argument. The Word of wisdom only applies to members, so I think it hypocritical to judge someone based on a promsie they never made.

I can dig up a few scriptures to support that if you like. Something along the lines of .....

It is not what goes into a man’s mouth that corrupts or defiles him, it is what comes out of his mouth that corrupts and defiles.

Jesus, was supposed to have said that...Make of it what you will.

That could be another thread.

Even Paul was careful not to rely on money for righteousness. I agree with Harmony here, if I interpret her correctly. Tithing as taught by the church is not necessarily what was taught in the New Testament. The widow's mite being a good example.

And it was rescinded in Joseph Smith's day, but when people didn't want to do it the old law was restored. The Jewish custom of giving to the temple is different altogether, as well.

Well, as the old saying goes. Two wrongs don't make a right!!! But I would assume that Aaron's prodgeny may just have included those with more than average dark skin. We are talking very olive skinned people's anyway. Dark curly hair, dark eyes, dark skin. Pre the ban, I wonder if Jesus would have been allowed to hold the priesthood had he walked into the average American LDS church?

Good question, but we live in different times, and race back then had nothing to do with skin color, it had to do with nationality and family. The Aaronic priesthood was just as racist back then. If you disagree with the Bible then you can make the argument today, but if you believe the Bible is the word of God you've got no leg to stand on.

I kind of do sense this from the Fair and now Mad boards, from what the scholars argue anyway. But.....many of my friends who are active LDS have not heard of Bushman's tome, far less Van Wagoner, Grant Palmer or Dan Vogel. I guess it depends where you live.

True. I wanted to know everything from the day I got baptized, and I understand many people do not feel the same, and they may miss out on exposure to important principles and things that will help members stay strong for the future when it will become increasingly difficult to remain faithful.

[_maklelan]

While we're whining about what God does, though, I'd like to give birth to a child.

Sorry Mak, but I had to respond to this...and, sorry Miss Taken, for de-railing...I would LOVE to see ANY male go through labor and delivery of a child. They would definitely have new respect for women.

I have nothing but respect for women, and I think it's an experience that I would love to have.

[_Gazelam]

One of the things restored was revelation. Please explain to us your understanding of revelation and how it works. Also its purpose.

Thanks

Gaz

[_Mephitus]

rev·e·la·tion Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rev-uh-ley-shuhn] –noun

1. the act of revealing or disclosing; disclosure.

2. something revealed or disclosed, esp. a striking disclosure, as of something not before realized.

3. Theology.
a. God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures.
b. an instance of such communication or disclosure.

God telling you about himself and the nature of reality or self.

[_Sam Harris]

Just wondering how you would like to see the church develop in the next 10-20 years.

Do you think there will be any major cultural/doctrinal shifts as it moves mainstream, or do you think
that it's foundation claims will always hold it back?

I'd like to see it let go of the Book of Mormon as a historical document, and study it in the context of the
time in which it emerged. (same for Book of Abraham)

I'd like to see women hold the priesthood along with men, becoming apostles, with maybe even a female
prophet (though that one would probably be 50 years away)

I'd like it to stop teaching that men and women must be married in order to achieve celestial glory.

I'd like to see it permit gay marriage.

I'd like to see a reasonbly paid ministry, so that 'bishops' can truly concentrate on their flock and on others (non-mormon)
in the general community.

I'd like it to come out of isolation and see its ministry enlarged to all peoples, Mormon or not, and whether they join or not.

I'd like to see scholars really examine the LDS cannon, and come up with some workable theology that is
liberal in approach

I'd like to see a re-examination of the various first vision accounts with some amended ideas about the nature of
God. (Did he really say all other religions were an abomination. I really don't think so)

I'd like to see the church step down from it's exclusive truth claims, and find a niche as another alternative in the
cornucopia of faiths that exist presently

I'd like to see it becoming far more ecumenical as a result.

I'd like it to tone down the word of wisdom because it seems to encourage self-righteousness on such a flimsy foundation.

I'd like it to stop requiring 10% tithing in order to go to the temple, and to start handing out the collection tin, so
people can truly give in secret.

I'd like to see it hand over all it's businesses to outside sources, so as to allow the leaders to concentrate only on
individual development.

I'd like to see some blue collar workers in the leadership, known for their spirituality rather than their academic credentials
or the size of their paycheck.

I'd like it to say that it was categorically wrong for those of skin colour to be withheld from the priesthood, without the excuses that it
was understandable for the culture of the time. (same argument doesn't hold for polygamy for instance)

I'd like it to encourage the idea that Joseph was a complex, deeply flawed man, who with others still managed to produce something
that has the capacity to do good.

There's a start.

What think you???


(Dang, I keep adding to this....)

I mirror your wishes, however, the LDS church would cease to exist if the above happened. Their power is based upon the above teachings and "principles". These things set them apart from other churches, and in the eyes of some (like Gaz, Wade, Plutarch, etc.) make them "unique". They'd be just another part of the body of Christ if the above were to happen, and you know the TBMs need to feel special, even if they do so at the expense of someone else.

[_Draig Goch]

One of the things restored was revelation. Please explain to us your understanding of revelation and how it works. Also its purpose.

Thanks

Gaz

What exactly does revelation have to do with my comment?

If the church was restored in its "fullness", how and why have there been additions and subtractions?

The moment one is made, the "fullness" claim falls flat. Everything would have come all at once, not in stages.

No new quorums (council of fifty), removal of canonized scripture (Lectures on Faith), addition of polygamy, expansion and deletions to temple rituals, etc.

Do you see anything wrong with this claim? The lie of having the fullness restored is one that can never be resolved. Unless the apologists would like to reword that somehow. You know, something like rephrasing the statement made at the beginning of the Book of Mormon - stating to be written about the "principle ancestors" of the American Indians.

Complete nonsense.

It's not to late to get out from under the thumb. You shouldn't have to purchase your way to heaven.