Close Topic Options

Changes In Mormon Doctrine And Practice - Page 5

This is the most disturbing idea of all to me. You seem to calmly accept the idea that we are regressing rather than progressing, since there is a very clear record of "simplifying" the ordinances and doctrines.

So, we see that the Endowment is becoming more simple, easier to understand, easier and faster to accomplish. Does this indicate progress? Not to me.

Read General Conference addresses in the Journal of Discourses and you will see discussion of endowment principles. You will read how Heber C. Kimball tells about using the True Order of Prayer for himself to gain revelation. You will learn eternal principles. Then compare that to current GC reports. See if there is a difference in the spiritual depth of the two.

If things are simpler now than they were before 1890, that should be very telling in the context of Alma 12.

I don't know. Are the hand movements, penalties, etc. less important? Do they teach specific things that we no longer think are important? What is the meaning behind them? How can we find out? If they are very important, then how do we deal with the fact that very soon, most members of the Church will never even know about them?

Perhaps that 8-hour endowment for the individual gave us a true, wonderful endowment of power. Perhaps work for the dead doesn't need to be more than 45 minutes. But we are so impatient and rushed that we think it is much better that we only spend about an hour in the endowment instead of the 2 1/2 hours it used to be.

What about the lecture before the veil? I experienced it a few times before 1990. It doesn't appear to be available any more.

So, once again, if things are simpler, does that mean that we are more, or less, capable of understanding. If less, then how does that match up with Alma 12?

Practice Doctrine Mormon Changes

Address generally both points from Posters.

What is being surmised from this is:

1. The today Prophet can issue any statement and that statement overrides all other Prophets' statements. If this is true then what do we use as a guide other than the Spirit? How does that fit in with proving the truth or the statement by going back to the source of original Doctrine? Should we take issue with the bill of divorcement introduced to appease the people even though God did not want it? Is that what is happening today?

2. From what I gathered by Joseph Smith and the Restoration is that we were to follow the guidance given, exactly as given - the only divination should be where and when. Indeed as I understand it the D&C should be a continuing book, where exact commandments are given as to what the people should do? Some will say that is what General Conference is for, but I have to wonder - how much does one have to listen to or read to get the one line or sentence of that actual 'to do' as in the format of the D&C?

3. For me there is one thing for sure -- the One greatest Prophet - Jesus Christ - spoke words that I hope are never changed.

Changes In Mormon Doctrine And Practice Studies Doctrine Mormon

In some cases it also may be true that simplicity is a step in the right direction.

Consider the many legalistic requirements in the Old Testament. There were many oaths,requirements that represented the Saviors sacrifice, but were in fact a a more complex version of the simple and concise worship that came in the New testament.

Simplification is not always a move away from truth, but rather a move toward the heart of the truth. I do not however know if this is the case with the Temple Endowment, its just something to consider when talking about this subject of changing Practices and Doctrine.

What if a change in Practice (if it is from God), is God moving to simply bring us back to him through Christ. What if he wants us to focus more on the signs and symbols that represent a clear path back to him, rather then and extended presentation that is not as clear? I am not saying that this is what happened, but I do believe that God often prefers simplicity to complexity in how he presents his message.

Page 5 Practice Doctrine Mormon Changes

Dbackers, but what about Nighthawk's point which to me is very important. Does simplicity equals to progress or regress? If things have to be "simplified" (which for me isn't) for the members to understand after hundreds of years when Joseph Smith established these ceremonies...so what are we saying? Are we going backwards instead of forward? Is removing SEVERAL IMPORTANT parts of the endowments, simplifying really?

Practice Doctrine Mormon Changes

No LDS.
My point is that sometimes simplicity is a step forward and sometimes it is a step back. I believe in the case of the endowment that it is a step forward for varying reasons, pertaining to moving the work of the Lord forward.

It is my opinion that the endowment was not perfect when Joseph Smith received it, and it still does not represent the perfection of the endowment we will receive in Heaven. Notice when we take the endowment that it states that we are anointed to become priests and Priestesses, Queens and Kings, not that we automatically become such. There must be some overriding ordinance , that is a furtherance of the endowment we receive on earth, where we do in fact become Priests and Priestesses, Kings and Queens.

Does anyone really believe that the endowment as received by Joseph Smith is the final and ultimate ordinance that we will receive on our path to Celestial life?

This is a preparatory ordinance in my opinion, to prepares us for all things that come to a celestialized resurrected beings.

But I do believe that the endowment in its current form (as well as all of its forms) is sanctioned by God and has been established (in its current form and length) for a particular reason.

The reasons I would reserve for another discussion.

Changes In Mormon Doctrine And Practice

Now that's interesting, how did you reach that conclusion besides the example you gave? Perhaps this is not the Thread, we have many about the Endowment here, but many feel that Joseph 'borrowed' from the Masons, if so why would a Prophet need to do that and then declare it correct and should not be changed.

Changes Mormon Doctrine Practice - Page 5

I talked briefly about this theory in another thread, but basically I believe that because Human Language and society is so imprecise, that the exact meanings and symbolism behind the endowment cannot be conveyed with our current language and understanding. Therefore it was not perfect when it was given and is not perfect now, but rather is a representation of the Heavenly endowment that will come to us at a later time. It was also a reflection of the background of both Joseph Smith and Later Brigham Young (who was asked to improve on the mechanics of the endowment) based on their weaknesses and the manner of their Language (which were limited by their education and cultural framework).

Jesus himself admits in the Doctrine and Covenants that commandments were given to the Prophet in their weakness, and in their imperfect language. Therefore, the exact meaning of the eternal truths are veiled by the weakness of the Messenger. Thus a reliance on the Holy Spirit is vital in our eternal journey, though I suspect even our minds are influenced by the weakness of our Language and cultural upbringing. Therefore God gives us knowledge little by little so that we may assimilate that knowledge and gradually grow to overcome our liabilities as mortals.

With the imprecise Language and societal frame work that the lord chooses to work in, I believe that the Lord mercifully gives us his message and representation of "our relationship" to God, in a way that is understandable to the most amount of people from varying cultures and backgrounds within the framework of the Culture that exists. Whereas the original endowment was meant for an exclusive people (19th century Puritan sensibilities), the Endowment was modified by God with different individuals from different backgrounds and sensibilities, in mind. I do not see this as a bad thing, and I think that it reflects a God who is mindful of each Generation and each individual. This is why I am not particularly bothered if changes are made, if I believe these to be Changes instituted by God.

Changes Mormon Doctrine Practice Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 5

I received a very enlightening piece in an email group today dealing with this subject. Here is a bit from the beginning. This is from an "open letter" written in 1971.

So, what do the scriptures have to say?

Most of the things we have discussed in this thread have been things related to the Doctrine and Covenants. The rest of the letter is about plural marriage, so is not completely relevant here. The thing is that D&C 58:32 is very clear. If the Lord has revoked some of the law, then we are damned in that we will not receive the blessings associated with it, no matter how good our intentions. Then, D&C 3:2 points out that God does NOT change the Law, nor does He change the "order of Heaven."

The Endowment has been reduced, watered down, and changed from a formal covenant to a "teaching moment". Formal covenants, beginning with the time of Adam, included "penalties" as an important part. Again, if God revoked some parts of the Endowment, then we are all in a lot of trouble, because that means that we are far less worthy than our predecessors. This is also true of the many other doctrines that have seen changes over the years.