- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
So, the pattern for these changes seem to stem from a closer examination of the scriptures. Which is good … I think.
The witness change comes from a scriptural reference (D&C 6:28, Deut. 19:15, Matt. 18:16, 2 Cor. 13:1, 1 Tim. 5:19, etc.).
The bishopric/YM change comes from a scriptural reference (D&C 107:15).
The Church name comes from a scriptural reference (D&C 115:4).
etc.
Some things are yet to be seen, but my paranoia is spiking.
😳 If we set the stage for “thus saith the scriptures,” are we opening the door to re-examine D&C 132? “Thus saith…so we need to…”
Aside from what could be a misplaced semicolon, we could counter 132 with Jacob’s 2:30 admonition about that very topic. I love Jacob.
🙂 Two things make me anxious about that topic now:
- The term “Heavenly Parents” in the new YW theme. We aren’t clear on how many heavenly mothers we all have.
Will we soon be teaching our YW that polygamy is a heavenly thing? Or could we clarify that there will only be one wife and one husband in heaven?
- The mention of more than one spouse in heaven during this last GC session.
🙄
Yeah, I have issues.
Also, it won’t happen, but we could go back and re-examine the WOW and “thus saith” no hot drinks means NO hot drinks, etc.
And, the Savior’s words about establishing more or less of His doctrine than He established (3 Nephi 11:40) is not built upon His rock. We could technically look at anything that was proclaimed outside of His visit in 3 Nephi and say that it violates what He Himself said when visiting the Nephites. That would be messy, wouldn’t it?
We could re-examine tithing and base it on scripture (Rock Waterman has some good thoughts on that one). Redefine it to mean surplus after all life-sustaining obligations are met (food, shelter).
Now, where can we find a scripture that says that men have to keep their new name a secret from their wives?
:😆 One of the hallmarks of the restoration was no longer being hamstrung by the limitations of scripture that existed at the time. The benefit of god speaking to man was that people could move forward in confidence in ways that weren’t defined in existing scripture. We had enough faith to writescripture. Existing scripture when JS restored the church: The Bible
Existing scripture now: The Bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP
IMO exclusively relying on legalistic interpretation of existing scripture to move forward prevents us from receiving revelation and writing scripture we need for our day. Are we looking for greater light and knowledge or are we assuming that god has already revealed everything and the answer is to parse existing scripture… falling into the same trap that JS’s restoration attempted to free us from?
Side note: going back to existing scripture to move forward. Does this approach not assume inerrancy of scripture?
Quote:IMO exclusively relying on legalistic interpretation of existing scripture to move forward prevents us from receiving revelation and writing scripture we need for our day. Are we looking for greater light and knowledge or are we assuming that god has already revealed everything and the answer is to parse existing scripture… falling into the same trap that JS’s restoration attempted to free us from?
Oh, wow. I had not considered that.
This is why I love discussions. Thank you for your insight.
:thumbup: I understand the concern and share it to a degree, but I also like referring to the scriptures in order to correct improper movement in the wrong direction (to reject the incorrect traditions of our own fathers). That is how I see nearly all of the recent changes: We were getting too programmatic and legalistic and robotic and “church-centered”. These changes focus on moving the focus back to individuals and families – including children and youth to an extent I have not seen in my lifetime. In a real way, they are anti-correlation – and I love that.
They also are moving us toward equalization, and I love that.
Old Timer wrote:
That is how I see nearly all of the recent changes: We were getting to programmatic and legalistic and robotic and “church-centered”. These changes focus on moving the focus back to individuals and families – including children and youth to an extent I have not seen in my lifetime. In a real way, they are anti-correlation – and I love that.They also are moving us toward equalization, and I love that.
Exactly this. I have become a student of church history of late, particularly the early church in the time of Joseph Smith. And I have become a student of Joseph himself as a result. I have in the past few years said that if Joseph were to see the church today he may not recognize it because it is so different from what he established. But I believe little by little we are returning to that root organization Joseph himself put in place. There was no correlation in Joseph’s day, and I agree many of these recent changes are as Curt says – anti-correlation.
As to scripture, I too like to look at scripture in relation to doctrine. I do believe the fullness of the gospel is contained in the Bible and likewise in the Book of Mormon. On doctrine I don’t believe they contradict one another. So when I look to scripture I’m not looking at the D&C for doctrine. The D&C is more about policy than doctrine, although it does contain doctrine. Setting policy based on the D&C is fine with me. I’ll just throw in here: the gospel is very simple.
Old Timer wrote:
We were getting too programmatic and legalistic and robotic and “church-centered”.
See my quote from my signature line “It doesn’t have to be about the church all the time!!!”.
That was one reason I left. It was clear that if I was serving the organizational interests of the church, I was in the out group. If I wasn’t, I was in the out-group, regardles of my own needs — burnout, need for change, depression, safe place for my daughter who was bullied. None of that mattered — what mattered was church policy.
Glad we are seeing a change toward less church egocentricity. But as you know, this will last for a while, and then the pendulum will swing again. Normally this happens slowly in the church, however.
We often use scripture to justify our current practice. I am really curious about all these changes and where they originate. Is there a master plan? Are we just going back to a previous era of more simplicity? Is there a committee putting these proposals forward? Do they appear in RMN dreams at night?
I suppose whatever the answer, it is presented as the Lord leading his church into the future precisely as He wants to.
- The term “Heavenly Parents” in the new YW theme. We aren’t clear on how many heavenly mothers we all have.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.