Changes in LDS Doctrine?

[_bcspace]

A high council speaker recently stood before the congregation and stated "Doctrine never changes, it is forever".

Depends on the sense. Technically, LDS doctrine can and does change. But in the sense that doctrine biulds on what we already know, it doesn't.

What LDS "Doctrine" has seen changes from Joesph Smith's teaching to what we see in LDSinc today?'

Only that which was new; the Godhead for example. In other areas where people have accused us of changing the doctrine such as plural marriage or the seed of Cain and the priesthood, there has been no change in doctrine whatsoever.

[_truth dancer]

As has been stated, pretty much everything has changed but a few biggies...

1. The nature of God. The very fact that the Lectures on Faith was removed from scripture due to changes regarding the nature of God and Christ is pretty significant to me.

2. The fact that the scriptures on monogamy, in the original D&C 104 (Book of Commandments) If I recall correctly, were removed while section 132 was added is startling in my opinion.

3. Then take everything from playing cards, Adam God, garments, WoW, tithing, who gets the priesthood, the temple covenants... (remember the oath of vengeance that was required in the early ceremony)? Everything has changed.

You know... further light and knowledge and all that! ;-)

~td~

[_xolotl]

emilysmith you win the prize!

And although Hitler was probably the worst man in the history of the world, does this statement really stand as true?

Can a religion successfully exist without a real clear defined doctrine that does not change?

I am searching for the clearly defined doctrine of the LDS church as given by Prophets and not apologists, but must turn to the apologists to ask where this clearly defined doctrine exists.

Good luck with that. What was once clear and defined doctrine changed, then changed again and again. The apologists will only point you to a press release they perceive as doctrine, which attempts to redefine doctrine as anything currently being taught and of course, according to the press release itself, it is not doctrine.
There really is no such thing as doctrine in the church anymore. Current beliefs and understandings would be what make up the church.

Hey... why can find official statements from the first presidency that the same hill cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon and by early prophets of the church is in fact the same hill in New York, but nearly all the apologists reject that doctrine because it is no longer a standard for their current belief system? Is it not doctrinal because it was officially taught pre-what-is-doctrine press release or is it not doctrinal because it conflicts with their currently held beliefs? Doctrine, Doctrine, where is thy form?