I’m curious what doctrine you think has been changed? I’m a member of the church and can happily answer questions to the best of my ability.
I will agree that policy has changed over time (for better and for worse, it’s run by a bunch of regular people and people make both good and bad decisions) but the core doctrine is pretty static.
There is no way I will engage with you on Mormon subjects. I was raised in that hateful cult and will have nothing to do with its current members. Frankly, most of them are profoundly ignorant of their own history beyond the official white-washed (like literally) versions.
You are free to use a search engine or go to the official church pages to find their press releases over the last few years.
The core doctrine is white supremacy, and there have been significant changes to the way that is portrayed over the years.
If you want a more substantial answer to your question about how the doctrines have changed, read “This is my doctrine” by Charlie Harrell. If you want a more detailed example of what doctrine is and how it changes, read “second class saints” by Matthew Harris. If you want even more examples, just read the BOM and see how doctrines in it are at odds with the D&C. Seriously - take the BOM at face value and compare it. It’s wildly incompatible. Ignore the context of what you’ve been taught about the BOM. Read it like someone in 1828 would.
Even something like the doctrine of the atonement has fundamentally changed because Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both advocated for blood atonement (yes, Joseph did teach and advocate it). And the Adam God doctrine was literally taught in the temple. These two things alone show that even something as seemingly static as the atonement of Christ is anything but static within the history of the church.
Doctrine changes all the time and no one in any position of authority wants to take a firm stand on what it is because it’s impossible to define. The reason why I use the atonement is to prevent (well intentioned, I’m sure) tbm’s from using the motte and bailey fallacy: something that someone says isn’t actually doctrine, according to you, (like Africans being descendents of Cain, for example) so you retreat to something more fundamental like the atonement. This is also similar to moving the goal posts.
At any rate, good luck with working your salvation out with fear and trembling. I gave most of my life to the church. I’m better now that I’m out. I’m much better now that I’m out. That’s not going to be true for LITERALLY everyone, but you should at least be willing to give it serious thought.
Black segregation in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a part of the religion for over a century. The LDS church discouraged social interaction or marriage with Black people and encouraged racial segregation. The practice began with church founder Joseph Smith who stated, “I would confine them [Black people] by strict law to their own species”.[1]: 1843 Until 1963, many church leaders supported legalized racial segregation.[2]
I’m hearing your argument as this: “The LDS church is essentially fine because the core doctrines are good. The bad things are merely policy, and it’s okay for mere policy to change over time. That doesn’t disprove the core doctrines.”
I disagree. If the church’s founder and high leaders advocate for legal racial segregation, using the church’s authority as backing, then it does not matter whether we are talking about doctrine vs. policy or divinity vs. human fallibility. Whatever it is, it’s a negative effect caused by the church as a whole.
And from a skeptic’s perspective, this makes it impossible to have any faith in the LDS church. If the founder can be wrong about something so harmful, and if core doctrines can later be rejected as mere “policy”, then really I should always be engaging my critical thinking. And if the human leaders can be wrong, then I have no way to be sure that they’re right about any of the doctrine.
Whereas I believe gay marriage has majority support among typical Americans.
What are we supposed to make of this?
God comes down from Heaven and inspires prophets to build and run His church, but when His prophets are wrong about policy, wrong in a way that hurts marginalized people like Black people and gay people, God just lets that happen? In His name?
Religion should be an excuse to be good, not an excuse to be wrong.
If you draw a line around the LDS church and ask what goes in and out of that boundary, I see a highly-political entity that collects a lot of money and exerts control over people in ways that a good church would not do. I don’t see innocent doctrine.
Religion should be an excuse to be good, not an excuse to be wrong.
I couldn’t agree more. The church absolutely has bad history in regards to black segregation and current issues with LGBTQ+ peoples. One of the big parts of our doctrine is that everyone here on earth is flawed, no one here is perfect. This very much includes the prophets and apostles (they have said so themselves), and - if one is in a good ward/congregation that understands the doctrine - we look into these past atrocities and try to be better. We teach church history and encourage members to look through archived documents and research materials.
If the founder can be wrong about something so harmful, and if core doctrines can later be rejected as mere “policy”, then really I should always be engaging my critical thinking.
Critical thinking is great, and definitely encouraged! Joseph Smith did his best to follow the doctrine and lead the church according to how he interpreted the scriptures, but at the end of the day he was just a human like you and I and subject to his own biases.
I do try and make a distinction between policy (how leaders understand doctrine and apply it to church functions. Current policy can be found in the General Handbook) and doctrine (what’s actually written in the scriptures, and often interpreted differently by different people). As far as I’m aware, church doctrine has never supported not giving blacks the priesthood. Church policy on the other hand was dictated by the times at the hands of men, and men decided that blacks could no longer receive the priesthood, and we can and do all agree that it was a Bad Thing to do and is a blemish on the church’s history.
How do you feel about the fact that Joseph Smith claimed to be the first person in the world able to translate hieroglyphics, with no training or understanding of languages or translation?
The Kinderhook plates are a fun one to bring up. As are the Books of Abraham and Moses, which are literally scripture to Mormons, but deeply embarrassing in their origin story.
What about the fact that if the Book of Mormon was translated from Egyptian written 2500 years ago, it would not have the translation Christ, because that comes from the Greek translation and instead would have Messiah, making it anachronistic?
There are actually quite a lot of Mormons on Lemmy. I stick around anyway because the majority of them have moved beyond the mythology they were spoon fed as youth. Those who have done that work are usually very knowledgeable about religion and have a lot to offer the discussions.
I would estimate that maybe 20% of the insightful and thoughtful posters or commenters in religion topics (English language) are Mormons who do not affiliate with the religion offered by the Corportation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I’m curious what doctrine you think has been changed? I’m a member of the church and can happily answer questions to the best of my ability.
I will agree that policy has changed over time (for better and for worse, it’s run by a bunch of regular people and people make both good and bad decisions) but the core doctrine is pretty static.
There is no way I will engage with you on Mormon subjects. I was raised in that hateful cult and will have nothing to do with its current members. Frankly, most of them are profoundly ignorant of their own history beyond the official white-washed (like literally) versions.
You are free to use a search engine or go to the official church pages to find their press releases over the last few years.
The core doctrine is white supremacy, and there have been significant changes to the way that is portrayed over the years.
If you want a more substantial answer to your question about how the doctrines have changed, read “This is my doctrine” by Charlie Harrell. If you want a more detailed example of what doctrine is and how it changes, read “second class saints” by Matthew Harris. If you want even more examples, just read the BOM and see how doctrines in it are at odds with the D&C. Seriously - take the BOM at face value and compare it. It’s wildly incompatible. Ignore the context of what you’ve been taught about the BOM. Read it like someone in 1828 would.
Even something like the doctrine of the atonement has fundamentally changed because Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both advocated for blood atonement (yes, Joseph did teach and advocate it). And the Adam God doctrine was literally taught in the temple. These two things alone show that even something as seemingly static as the atonement of Christ is anything but static within the history of the church.
Doctrine changes all the time and no one in any position of authority wants to take a firm stand on what it is because it’s impossible to define. The reason why I use the atonement is to prevent (well intentioned, I’m sure) tbm’s from using the motte and bailey fallacy: something that someone says isn’t actually doctrine, according to you, (like Africans being descendents of Cain, for example) so you retreat to something more fundamental like the atonement. This is also similar to moving the goal posts.
At any rate, good luck with working your salvation out with fear and trembling. I gave most of my life to the church. I’m better now that I’m out. I’m much better now that I’m out. That’s not going to be true for LITERALLY everyone, but you should at least be willing to give it serious thought.
Hey there. I don’t know this history by heart, so I’ll assume this Wikipedia article is fairly accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_segregation_and_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
I’m hearing your argument as this: “The LDS church is essentially fine because the core doctrines are good. The bad things are merely policy, and it’s okay for mere policy to change over time. That doesn’t disprove the core doctrines.”
I disagree. If the church’s founder and high leaders advocate for legal racial segregation, using the church’s authority as backing, then it does not matter whether we are talking about doctrine vs. policy or divinity vs. human fallibility. Whatever it is, it’s a negative effect caused by the church as a whole.
And from a skeptic’s perspective, this makes it impossible to have any faith in the LDS church. If the founder can be wrong about something so harmful, and if core doctrines can later be rejected as mere “policy”, then really I should always be engaging my critical thinking. And if the human leaders can be wrong, then I have no way to be sure that they’re right about any of the doctrine.
It sounds like the church still has a pretty strong stance against same-sex marriage and homosexuality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_and_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Homosexuality
Whereas I believe gay marriage has majority support among typical Americans.
What are we supposed to make of this?
God comes down from Heaven and inspires prophets to build and run His church, but when His prophets are wrong about policy, wrong in a way that hurts marginalized people like Black people and gay people, God just lets that happen? In His name?
Religion should be an excuse to be good, not an excuse to be wrong.
If you draw a line around the LDS church and ask what goes in and out of that boundary, I see a highly-political entity that collects a lot of money and exerts control over people in ways that a good church would not do. I don’t see innocent doctrine.
I couldn’t agree more. The church absolutely has bad history in regards to black segregation and current issues with LGBTQ+ peoples. One of the big parts of our doctrine is that everyone here on earth is flawed, no one here is perfect. This very much includes the prophets and apostles (they have said so themselves), and - if one is in a good ward/congregation that understands the doctrine - we look into these past atrocities and try to be better. We teach church history and encourage members to look through archived documents and research materials.
Critical thinking is great, and definitely encouraged! Joseph Smith did his best to follow the doctrine and lead the church according to how he interpreted the scriptures, but at the end of the day he was just a human like you and I and subject to his own biases.
I do try and make a distinction between policy (how leaders understand doctrine and apply it to church functions. Current policy can be found in the General Handbook) and doctrine (what’s actually written in the scriptures, and often interpreted differently by different people). As far as I’m aware, church doctrine has never supported not giving blacks the priesthood. Church policy on the other hand was dictated by the times at the hands of men, and men decided that blacks could no longer receive the priesthood, and we can and do all agree that it was a Bad Thing to do and is a blemish on the church’s history.
How do you feel about the fact that Joseph Smith claimed to be the first person in the world able to translate hieroglyphics, with no training or understanding of languages or translation?
[Cricket chirp sound intensifies]
Anybody else just see a tumbleweed roll through here?
The Kinderhook plates are a fun one to bring up. As are the Books of Abraham and Moses, which are literally scripture to Mormons, but deeply embarrassing in their origin story.
What about the fact that if the Book of Mormon was translated from Egyptian written 2500 years ago, it would not have the translation Christ, because that comes from the Greek translation and instead would have Messiah, making it anachronistic?
⚠️🚨I FOUND ANOTHER MORMON ON LEMMY!!!🚨⚠️
There are actually quite a lot of Mormons on Lemmy. I stick around anyway because the majority of them have moved beyond the mythology they were spoon fed as youth. Those who have done that work are usually very knowledgeable about religion and have a lot to offer the discussions.
I would estimate that maybe 20% of the insightful and thoughtful posters or commenters in religion topics (English language) are Mormons who do not affiliate with the religion offered by the Corportation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I wonder what happened to baldprophet.
So are you talking about community-of-christ mormons?
No, I am referring to the Brighamite offshoot in Utah with all the money.
They certainly offshot in Utah alright
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Revelation_on_Priesthood