- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I tread lightly on my recent question I wish to propose to the group: What is likely to happen to the Church as it continues to grow and is forced to deal with societial issues?My thoughts have been on this issue as we talk about SSM and Prop 8 in California, which I think are current issues akin to polygamy and the priesthood ban. Sometimes I feel that many answers to my questions are resolved by nuanced language or personal revelation prevailing over institutional revelation. Or that one must resolve things like personal truth vs absolute external universal truths, and infallible prophets vs a God that is the same today yesterday and forever.
I believe there was a great apostacy from Christ’s church after the death of the apostles. God didn’t stay involved in the church to keep it from apostacizing. Then the truth needed to be restored through individuals like Martin Luther, protestant groups, enlightened individuals, and finally Joseph Smith. It is LDS doctrine that the authority of God’s true church will never be taken from the earth again because this last dispensation will usher in the 2nd Coming of the Savior.
The discussion I would like to have is, is it inevitable the Church will become pretty much like any other major religion in the world, conforming (perhaps more slowly than other groups) to issues in order to progress (see Ray’s comments on the church’s recent missionary trends and results with certain racial groups in the Prop 8 thread)? Does it need to conform in order to market itself? Does it need to market itself, or can it stand on its own belief it has the truth and still survive?
Here is President Hinckley’s description on the Nicene Creed:
Quote:“Following the Savior’s death, the Church He had established drifted into apostasy. Fulfilled were the words of Isaiah, who said, “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant” (Isaiah 24:5).
Realizing the importance of knowing the true nature of God, men had struggled to find a way to define Him. Learned clerics argued with one another. When Constantine became a Christian in the fourth century, he called together a great convocation of learned men with the hope that they could reach a conclusion of understanding concerning the true nature of Deity. All they reached was a compromise of various points of view. The result was the Nicene Creed of a.d. 325. This and subsequent creeds have become the declaration of doctrine concerning the nature of Deity for most of Christianity ever since.
I have read them all a number of times. I cannot understand them. I think others cannot understand them. I am sure that the Lord also knew that many would not understand them. And so in 1820, in that incomparable vision, the Father and the Son appeared to the boy Joseph. They spoke to him with words that were audible, and he spoke to Them. They could see. They could speak. They could hear. They were personal. They were of substance. They were not imaginary beings. They were beings tabernacled in flesh. And out of that experience has come our unique and true understanding of the nature of Deity.
Ensign Nov 2007“ On one extreme, I see fundamentalist mormons have a good argument that things should be kept the same as they were originally taught by early church leaders and the modern church has departed from such (my understanding of fundamentalism). On the other extreme, there is no universal truth and therefore things change and the church will inevitably change doctrines and change its practices, like other religions have. In the middle, I have always thought modern revelation will balance the two and bring the Church necessary ongoing revelation to change programs in the church, not doctrinal truths.
Is my view of middle ground possible as the church grows? Is the Internet allowing for an “informal
Nicene Creed” where everything becomes so nuanced, nothing makes sense anymore? Can the church leadership compete with that? Any thoughts?
This is a really heavy topic. No two answers will be alike. I don’t pretend to have any real answers. What is likely to happen to the Church as it continues to grow and is forced to deal with societial issues?
I am of the opinion that the Church will not continue to grow. The graph is going to plateau, if it hasn’t already.
I think history proves that the Church makes changes when needed for self preservation. That will continue.
That’s my short answer.
I think it is fascinating to talk of the earliest creeds (especially the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed) and the later creeds/confessions of Protestantism. I disagree totally that the Nicene Creed is incomprehensible.
I think both it and the Apostles’ Creed are totally in harmony with the Gospel we teach in the LDS Church.There is one statement in each that has to be explained properly to fit Mormon theology, but, when you actually parse the words carefully, they both could be read in Sacrament Meeting and nobody would blink an eye if they didn’t realize the source. I think Joseph’s description of the First Vision account fits the later Protestant confessions to a tee – and, really, he wasn’t even considering Catholicism or Buddhism or Islam or Hinduism in his prayer. He was praying about Protestant denominations – which “of them” was right and which “of them” he should join. I think everyone took the words and over-applied them to fit what Joseph learned later – that he was going to start an entirely new religion to restore lost truth.
I wrote a post on my own blog, and I will paste my parsing of the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed into a different thread, so I don’t derail this one further.
Back to the regularly scheduled discussion.
@Ray Good thoughts Ray, I like that.
Here’s my opinion. The church changes as it is forced to. No one knows for sure the status of people leaving the church, but it has been estimated 100,000. I would say the church is probably not growing anymore, and may be shrinking. Prop 8 will do nothing but hurt this more, and eventually out of self-preservation the church will be forced to change it’s policies on homosexuality. The church will continue to do what it needs to to preserve the authority of the leaders (a pattern fairly well followed since BY), and will simply ignore the majority of teachings we are currently hearing with regard to this issue.
I think the church will survive, but I would look to the Community of Christ (RLDS) church as a hint of things to come. I also think as things become more watered down, but also more authoritarian, and otherwise change we will see more people
1. leave Mormonism completely
2. become fundamentalist
I hope I’m wrong!!
jmb275, Every general conference has shown membership increases. 13.5M now. Seems to be leveling off from over 300k in the 80s to holding around 230k annually now. It would be interesting to know how many are not staying in the church.
I can see program changes in the church as needed, but SS marriage would be a major doctrinal change about the family. Open that door, and what else would really matter? Word of Wisdom, chastity, priesthood authority … everything could be changed. Interesting you brought up the Church of Christ (RLDS). They allow women to hold the priesthood, right?
That is my question when starting this thread. Is that the inevitable path the church is likely to go down. Why would it be any different than any other religion that went through those phases?
Heber, our church has gone through major doctrine changes. Did it throw the whole church out the window? No. Quote:I can see program changes in the church as needed, but SS marriage would be a major doctrinal change about the family. Open that door, and what else would really matter? Word of Wisdom, chastity, priesthood authority … everything could be changed. Interesting you brought up the Church of Christ (RLDS). They allow women to hold the priesthood, right?
Here are some examples of changes over our history from the examples you gave.
Marriage-Time only/monogomy–polygamy(needed for exaltation)/eternity–monogomy/eternity (and polygamy is still practiced with only one living legal wife at a time-women can only be sealed to more husbands once she is dead)
Word of Wisdom-Principle with a promise NOT to be forced or commanded–mandantory for temple and leadership–Commandment for all
Chastity-It was taught in the past that having “relations” with your wife more than once a month is the same as adultery. Ummm, non-babymaking relations was also considered against the law of chastity-anything “unnatural.” They used to even ask married couples during the temple rec. interview if they had oral s3x.
Priesthood Authority-All worthy men (inc black)–Only white men–All worthy men
I could argue that the RS presidency was given a key of authority by JS. They were also ordained to heal and did so until it was entirely stripped from them in 1960. They healed by the power of Jesus Christ and not by the authority of the PH, though. There are also journal entries written by BY and others that claim Emma was the first woman to receive the fulness of the PH in this dispensation. The RS was completely autonomous until ? 1960, I think. Correlation killed that.
Everything can be changed. The temple ceremonies, sacrament, priesthood. Everything.
Maybe a good question is: What is doctrine? What is the core that cannot change?
Heber13 wrote:jmb275,
Every general conference has shown membership increases. 13.5M now. Seems to be leveling off from over 300k in the 80s to holding around 230k annually now. It would be interesting to know how many are not staying in the church.
You’re right, each GC shows an increase. I just don’t think we get the whole story from this. When I say we probably aren’t growing I’m talking about the number of active people in the church is probably not increasing. I should have been more clear.Heber13 wrote:I can see program changes in the church as needed, but SS marriage would be a major doctrinal change about the family. Open that door, and what else would really matter? Word of Wisdom, chastity, priesthood authority … everything could be changed. Interesting you brought up the Church of Christ (RLDS). They allow women to hold the priesthood, right?
Yes, but I wasn’t particularly meaning the priesthood and women. Although, in the second annointing women take on an interesting priesthood role (probably one that would seem heretical to many TBMs).I think currently, you are viewing SSM in a very black and white manner. Imagine if you had been taught by Joseph and Brigham that Polygamy was an eternal principle and then the church changed it. Would you be saying the same thing about that as you are saying about SSM? It’s all perspective. In a constantly changing world those who insist on claiming literal, hard rules and doctrines will have a hard time adapting with the world. These kinds of people are very important, and serve an important function in collective human wisdom, but their views, just like mine, are most useful on a personal level, and in the aggregate of human wisdom. For an extreme example we can look towards some of the polygamous groups led by Warren Jeffs. Many of the boys who get booted out of the colony (another issue altogether) are completely dysfunctional because of their childhood.
I tend to think that when the church finally changes on SSM, or at least on homosexuality in general, it will be a “revelation” and the leaders will conveniently ignore past claims to the contrary so as to not undermine their authority and leadership. It will be phrased in a loving way, homosexuals will rejoice, liberals will rejoice, and the hard-line conservatives will either leave, turn fundamentalist, or latch on to the next set of literal doctrines. You may be interested in Anne Wilde’s compilation of 95 doctrines, practices, and principles that the LDS church has forsaken, watered down, or otherwise let go (unfortunately, I have only heard of this, I can’t seem to locate the book, anyone got any ideas?). I can really sympathize with this position. In our church we believe so much in an external revelatory process in which God is literally involved in our prophet’s lives that when these prophets get revelations, we believe them whole-heartedly. When things change, from a later prophet, it is tempting to see them as fallen, or apostate or something. This (I think) is the fundamentalist point of view. Without knocking them, I personally just think the whole model is not a good one. That is, to put faith and trust in a human being (and organization), and by extension, the associated doctrines and practices, with regard to such important matters is just not wise. As I’ve said before, I much prefer Joseph Campbell’s interpretation of mythology.
Heber13 wrote:That is my question when starting this thread. Is that the inevitable path the church is likely to go down.
Well, I am not arrogant enough to assume that my description is inevitable. I think, based on other churches, and common patterns, it is likely however. From an organizational standpoint, organizations who can reinvent themselves will survive the changing world. Mormonism has shown that it can do this. That’s why the LDS church is enormous, and the RLDS, and fundamentalist groups are tiny by comparison. Incidentally, I think it’s interesting to read about scholars talk about why the LDS church has become what it is, in contrast to the Strangites, RLDS church, etc. (a topic for another day, if it’s relevant at all).
Heber13 wrote:Why would it be any different than any other religion that went through those phases?
Exactly! People who think that the church is somehow the silver bullet of religions, has the “truth” and is hence somehow immune to cultural, social, and natural forces completely ignore the overwhelming historical lessons from other organizations that speak to the contrary. The wisdom of collective human understanding and experiencefarsurpasses any doctrinal, or authoritarian claims in my book. just me wrote:Maybe a good question is: What is doctrine? What is the core that cannot change?
As much as I like to hold on to all things we now preach as doctrine, because change requires effort to accept and because I
like to feelMormons are different and have some truth not found in any other religion, to be completely honest, these are the only things I think are doctrine that cannot be changed (I can let go of everything else if asked to do so): 1. God is a perfect resurrected being, and Father of our spirits
2. Jesus is the savior of the world and Only Begotten of the Father because of the Atonement which was real
3. The Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit
4. Joseph Smith actually saw, talked to, and heard God the Father and Jesus the Christ
5. The Book of Mormon, while spiritual in nature and symbolic, was actually written by ancient prophets and was truly translated by the Power of God
6. There is an afterlife of some kind
7. There is a plan of salvation
(I outta go back to Ray’s Nicene Creed post and I bet the list is similar).
Temples, sacraments, ordinances, prophets, commandments, church authority (priesthood), and even the definition of marriage are all ways to worship, to be organized, to have covenants and to strengthen each other to live better, but can all be changed. But if God changes … that is, He doesn’t exist, or He is not a Father but a mystery … that would never fly.
Since you make me think of it in these terms, all things can be changed by the will of God (not man), and your post shows that clearly they have over time.
So, consider yourself winning that debate…well done.
jmb275 wrote:I think currently, you are viewing SSM in a very black and white manner. Imagine if you had been taught by Joseph and Brigham that Polygamy was an eternal principle and then the church changed it. Would you be saying the same thing about that as you are saying about SSM?
Absolutely…that is what started my questions in this thread, to be honest. As I ready the other threads on polygamy, I thought: “You know, SSM is a modern situation of the polygamy events” – and when the Manifesto was published, many people left the church over it. It is always easier to believe in dead prophets than live prophets, because that change makes you really wonder about how revelation works or which prophet was “fallen”, in a sense. We seem to hold on to commandments and standards and never want them to change because we base our daily decisions on them and how we obey them. It can define us, and provide a basis for our view of reality.
To hear Elder Oaks clearly talk about how the church currently views homosexuality, as a choice that is the same as someone who suffers from alcoholism or a handicap (I’m not agreeing with it, just stating what he said), and then to have to change that stance to accepting it, is just a big paradigm shift that is hard. It would be the same as me telling you that you have green hair. “What, I’ve got
hair. There is no such thing as natural green hair. It just doesn’t exist.” Well actually, you just weren’t aware of it, but it is actually green and you’ll have to learn to accept that. To have something that was black and white change, is very difficult. But certainly, you are right, it has happened before and could very well be what happens again.
See my post to Just me. Do you think there are any absolute doctrines that could not change?
Heber13 wrote:just me wrote:Maybe a good question is: What is doctrine? What is the core that cannot change?
As much as I like to hold on to all things we now preach as doctrine, because change requires effort to accept and because I
like to feelMormons are different and have some truth not found in any other religion, to be completely honest, these are the only things I think are doctrine that cannot be changed (I can let go of everything else if asked to do so): 1. God is a perfect resurrected being, and Father of our spirits
2. Jesus is the savior of the world and Only Begotten of the Father because of the Atonement which was real
3. The Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit
4. Joseph Smith actually saw, talked to, and heard God the Father and Jesus the Christ
5. The Book of Mormon, while spiritual in nature and symbolic, was actually written by ancient prophets and was truly translated by the Power of God
6. There is an afterlife of some kind
7. There is a plan of salvation
(I outta go back to Ray’s Nicene Creed post and I bet the list is similar).
Temples, sacraments, ordinances, prophets, commandments, church authority (priesthood), and even the definition of marriage are all ways to worship, to be organized, to have covenants and to strengthen each other to live better, but can all be changed. But if God changes … that is, He doesn’t exist, or He is not a Father but a mystery … that would never fly.
Since you make me think of it in these terms, all things can be changed by the will of God (not man), and your post shows that clearly they have over time.
So, consider yourself winning that debate…well done.
Great, my ego (that I’m trying to get rid of) just inflated.
😳 😆 I agree with your assesment of LDS core doctrine today.
I will add that our understanding of the nature of God the Father has morphed over the years, too.
😮 We did not always believe he had a resurrected body. Our belief of who Jehovah is/was also morphed. I would say that our understanding of God the Father can change as long as he continues to be our Father.Personally, I don’t think the BoM has to be a real historical text for it to be true. Could the church as a whole weather that change? I dunno.
3 Nephi 11 has a beautiful explanation of the Doctrine of Christ.
Quote:31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.
32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear brecord of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.
35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
It’s amazing what it all gets distilled down to!
Joseph Smith was pretty clear, IMHO, on ordinances and principles not changing. TPJS 181 A key: Every principle proceeding from God is eternal and any principle which is not eternal if of the devil.
TPJS 264 The Gospel has always been the same; the ordinances to fulfill its requirements the same.
I respectfully submit that the Church can be a bit out of order on a few things and still be fulfulling a devine purpose. One shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and should instead look at the good the Church does.
I think some folks will fall away from the Church over the fact that it’s becoming more and more secular because they are actually looking for a reason to not live the rigid requirements. I’ve seen it for years and was somewhat guilty of it myself at one time. It feels so much better to blame the Church than to admit that you don’t have the intestinal fortitude to endure to the end….or that you’ve just become apathetic.
D&C 85 verse 7 speaks of one coming to set in order the house of God. Well, why would it need setting in order if it wasn’t first out of order? I don’t think Church members should worry too much about it. Everything is going to be set right eventually. It’s a full-time job just trying to live the commandments and do the things we need to be doing.
My opinion only…
Mileage may vary
Bruce, while we don’t agree on a lot of things (while agreeing on a lot of others things), I really appreciate having your fundamentalist perspective. It’s good sometimes to be reminded of that viewpoint, to use as a touchstone of sorts as we carve out our own perspectives – and you always are respectful when you express your views. I think Joseph was quite clear about the central principles of ordinances not changing, but I think he also altered lots of things (including the outward form of ordinances) without hesitation as he found ways to express the central principle in a different way. The temple ceremonies are a great example of that, imo.
Old-Timer wrote:Bruce, while we don’t agree on a lot of things (while agreeing on a lot of others things), I really appreciate having your fundamentalist perspective. It’s good sometimes to be reminded of that viewpoint, to use as a touchstone of sorts as we carve out our own perspectives – and you always are respectful when you express your views.
I think Joseph was quite clear about the central principles of ordinances not changing, but I think he also altered lots of things (including the outward form of ordinances) without hesitation as he found ways to express the central principle in a different way. The temple ceremonies are a great example of that, imo.
Great point! The Kirtland Temple was had VERY different ordinances done in it. Personally, I think Kirtland had it right on.
But, yes, JS had no issues changing and altering. All these outward things are a perfect expression of where we are in our progression.
Aside from that. I feel like I am on much more “firm a foundation” now that I realize what exactly is the pure doctrine of Christ and what is not.
Good points guys. Maybe I should rephrase my comments and call the things that should not change “essential principles”. I think Joseph Smith uses the term “ordinances” interchangably and it does cause a bit of confussion.
The “essential principles” of the gospel, we are taught, were introduced or established before this world was formed and should not change, but I agree with you guys that the outward expression of them does change.
Examples of stuff that should not change IMHO:
Baptism by immersion
Laying on of hands to bless others
Knowing the true nature of God
etc
“Endowment” is another term that Joseph used that the meaning has changed a bit. The endowments in the Kirtland Temple were certainly not what Mormons think of as “the endowment”.
Until we’re all speaking the pure Adamic language again, we’re going to continue having these semantic problems
Count me as “admit[ting] that you don’t have the intestinal fortitude to endure to the end.” Although I think anyone who knows me will know that am verycommitted to what I believe in.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.