The following text was posted to answer my 9 points of doctrinal change in Mormonism:



"The doctrine of polygamy hasn't changed. Jacob 2 in the BoM explains that God authorizes polygamy occasionally for a limited time to raise the birthrate in the church.


2. The priesthood ban was a misguided policy, not a doctrine (though many false doctrines were cooked up to explain it).


3. The Endowment has actually remained unchanged. Brigham explained that the Endowment contains 3 things: key words, signs, and tokens of the priesthood. To this day, that is still what constitutes the Endowment. Penalties, extra covenants, additional gestures, etc. were all part of the presentation, but were not part of the Endowment itself. These extras have been removed over time, but the Endowment remains unchanged.


4. Caffeine has been an ongoing debate in the Church, but it's prohibition has never been doctrine.


5. Evolution and old earth has also been an ongoing debate. LDS scripture leaves room for both.


6. Yes, the promise of faithful priesthood holders becoming gods was doctrine- and still is.


7. The 'walk to Missouri' is a debate surrounding the building of New Jerusalem, which IS doctrine. It's an ongoing source of debate as to HOW that will be fulfilled. A changing theory as to how a doctrine will be fulfilled is not the same as a doctrine changing.


8. There is certainly a hill in New York that the early Saints called Cumorah, but it's unknown whether it's the same hill of that name mentioned in the closing chapters of the Book of Mormon. Saying doctrine changed when scholars realized the hill in New York may not be the same hill referenced in the text is like saying geography changed when a child in Paris, Idaho realizes Les Miserables did not take place in his hometown.


9. The Book of Mormon has not changed what it says about Nephites, Lamanites, and non-Semitic peoples of the New World. Early Saints foolishly assumed that the Lamanites were the only peoples that lived in the Americas after the Nephite extinction, and this assumption made it all the way down in popular consciousness to Bruce R. McConkie, who wrote the INTRODUCTION that was recently changed in light of scholarly realizations that challenge the popular assumption"


Note:
The above was written by a believer, and it shows how their thinking processes excuse all the changes in Mormonism over the years.

--Don



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2016 10:12PM by donbagley.

A Monday morning prophet

...and a master of excuses.
Interesting how nearly every one of his excuses contradicts officially canonized LDS "scripture" or prophets (including JS).

If you look in a dictionary the word "doctrine" means teachings
and precepts of some organization. Mormonism teaches all kinds
of things--DEMANDS they be believed--excommunicates those who
push back against them. And then, after time has passed and the
world has changed beneath their feet they say, "oh, that wasn't
DOCTRINE, that was just a POLICY."

Years ago I told a recently liberated exmo friend of mine that
the history of Mormonism in the 20th century was a retreat from
doctrine. He has reminded me of this statement every time the
Church stages another retreat.

The upshot of all this change from considering things DOCTRINE
to considering them POLICY is that the excommunications etc.
from the past are justified by the fact that the victims fought
against the Church's policies. So the Church itself becomes
the thing that matters, not the teachings of the Church.
That's why obedience has become more important than anything
else.

There's a saying that over time the loyalties in an
organization shift from loyalty to the organization's goals to
loyalty to the organization's structure. That has clearly
happened in Mormonism.

I had the infamous Mike Ash tell me (via email)that the dictionary definition of doctrine was wrong. Can you believe it? He said doctrinal means information that has been carefully vetted by the GAs, and it was not for us to say. But one thing for sure, he said, the Curse of Cain was never doctrinal, and the Sunday school teachers who taught me that were out of line.

Never met a more obtuse group of charmers than the LDS.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2016 09:55PM by donbagley.

donbagley Wrote:

>
> Never met a more obtuse group of charmers than the
> LDS.


never met a politician?

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> donbagley Wrote:
>
> >
> > Never met a more obtuse group of charmers than
> the
> > LDS.
>
>
> never met a politician?

I recall watching an interview with a religious leader, not
LDS, and being surprised that he honestly answered the
questions asked. This was back when Hinckley was making the
media rounds. I was surprised because I was used to how
Mormons do it. They take a question, deflect it with a fuzzy
generality and then go into their prepared talking points.
Hinckley did this all the time, and he did it masterfully.
This is EXACTLY what politicians do: let any question be just a
springboard for your canned spiel.

What shocked me was that a religious leader was being like a
normal, honest person and not a politician. Mormonism had
trained me to expect religious leaders to act like politicians.

"There's a saying that over time the loyalties in an
organization shift from loyalty to the organization's goals to
loyalty to the organization's structure. That has clearly
happened in Mormonism."

- Excellent point!

Another likely story...

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 2. The priesthood ban was a misguided policy, not
> a doctrine (though many false doctrines were
> cooked up to explain it).

OK, let's accept things this mopologist says at face value and
see where it leads.

For 126 years the prophets, seers, and revelators, 10 of them
in a row, taught, implemented, and defended a hateful, wicked,
evil, racist POLICY and blasphemously claimed it came from
God. The claim was constantly made by these "prophets, seers
and revelators" that the POLICY was from God and not from man,
and the ONLY way it could be changed was if GOD were to change
it Himself.

Question: why the hell, then, should ANYONE trust ANYTHING
these clowns say today given their admitted horrible track
record?

P.S. sometimes the "prophet, seer and revelators" would refer
to the policy as a DOCTRINE, but clearly they were mistaken on
that too.

"The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord" George Albert Smith, 1949

Mormonism is so happy happy joy joy all about family and having joy until it is closely inspected. Then it needs this kind of treatment which is arrogant Mormons telling you want Mormonism is not, and what fools past Mormons were, and how the kernel of truth is truth though it is embedded in a whole shell of lies.

I looked up Jacob 2. Can someone explain to me how that can be used to claim that "God authorizes polygamy occasionally for a limited time to raise the birthrate in the church?" I'm just not seeing it anywhere in the text. (Aside from the foolishness of the argument, I understand that polygamy doesn't really raise the birthrate.)

So many things that are sketchy in what that guy said. His thought processes are frightening. I don't know why that should be surprising, considering the source, but every time I run into something like that, I am surprised all over again.

Then he told me that my mentioning it was a red herring. I have another post about that. I've blocked the nut.

I always thought 'red herring' was a tool used by an author, not an investigator. Since you authored neither the BOM or bible, how can you create a 'red herring'?. Ignoramus.

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always thought 'red herring' was a tool used by
> an author, not an investigator. Since you
> authored neither the BOM or bible, how can you
> create a 'red herring'?. Ignoramus.


Weeeelllll, did you look it up in the Mormon dictionary, hmmmm, did you?

I know it's a lttle tough to read with the words shifting, and moving around in little circles, but it will make you so happy knowing that you are not meant to know what words mean!

You can string together whatever words you like, so long as you are loyal to sentence structure.

very funny - liked that :)

The apologist used it in context. A red herring doesn't need to be purposefully distracting it just needs to distract. The apologist failed because there is not explanation on why it is a red herring.

It is tantamount to saying that rising temperatures are a red herring when discussing climate change. That may very well be, but could I please get an explanation on why that is?

The wicked may weep, wail, and gnash their teeth when the truths about the marvelous gospel are known. But this particular apologist seems to be making lying arguments in defense.

"Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell." (2 Ne 9:34)

For starts this guy seems to discount what prophets have taught and how they speak for God. If they actually didn't then the whole enchilada is a fraud. I personally like to single out Brigham Young because he was prophet longer than anyone else and the living FP/12 sure honor him extraordinarily as the class-all-by-itself brand called "BYU" is named in honor of this certain "speaks the word of God without question" man. If Brigham Young's sermons were to not be taken literally/seriously then we'd be sure to see the "BYU" brand renamed to something else. But since "BYU" is a bright shining light overlooking the world then so too are the marvelous words that Brigham Young preached to the world so all of his words are vital for accepting in order to believe in Mormonism.

"whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (D&C 1:38)

"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture." (Journal of Discourses 13:95 - Brigham Young)

On #2 that so-called apologist claims that what Brigham Young taught was misguided policy? That exposes him immediately either as a liar or an apostate. Here is what Brigham Young taught.

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race-that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion."(Journal of Discourses 7:282, Brigham Young)

And this is just the tip of the iceberg on many things that Brigham Young taught regarding the Blacks and the priesthood. He sure waxed eloquent and gave plenty of sermons that help establish a foundation for the long run on the eternal unchanging doctrine on how God felt about human races in the 19th century.

In reading through the rest its clear that this so-called apologist has some serious integrity and/or ignorance issues. If he wants to defend the church on any doctrines then he needs to start off by understanding things in their full context. Either the Angel Moroni knew his stuff on ancient American history/doctrines or he was full of baloney. He, and others, then imparted their wisdom/teachings to Joseph Smith. And others were called prophets too. Either they spoke the truth and proclaimed the glorious unchanging doctrines of an eternal God. Or they did not.

Some blessed day when all of you are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt and with every last single fibre of your beings that the Mormon church is the most truthful, honest, and transparent church on the earth then you will be contacting your local Bishops and begging to be re-baptized. Now of course if the church was anything less than being the most truthful, honest, and transparent church on the earth then it needs to be exposed for being a sleazy fraud. Well President Monson and the rest of the FP/12 never said this past conference that its a sleazy fraud and they are all loyally still living lives of luxury & controlling billions of dollars of wealth while being treated like rock stars so it seems marvelous and faith is strong amongst the ranks that its not a sleazy fraud. Then presuming its true you will be able to experience the joys of enduring to the end all the many wondrous assignments like cleaning the chapel/temple toilets, doing callings galore, defending the honesty/truthfulness of the church with everyone (though that won't require much work as genuine honesty/transparency is a piece of cake to defend), paying your tithes & much more, and making sure all your offspring/friends/everyone is getting themselves and all of their offspring/friends/everyone fully assimilated into this glorious enterprise. And then of course assuming its all true then you will be exalted and your eternal life will be full of trillions of messages daily in your inbox that need to be processed by you swiftly so that your eternal offspring in your worlds without number can get the blessings they deserve. Otherwise imagine the infinite guilt you shall feel if you don't answer one of their prayers and it results in their damnation and the damnation of trillions of their potential unborn spirit children. So don't forget that the minuscule guilt trips that Mormons feel is nothing in comparison to the glorious guilt feelings they shall have as heavenly parents, grandparents, etc. if they are exalted. That's Mormon heaven for you :) In the meantime the wicked will be going to hell rather than have this marvelous blessing of the heavy responsibilities & guilt management joys of LDS exaltation for all eternity.

A wonderful word I have seen apologists use is "misguided".

Why is it wonderful? Because they also, but definition, must agree that LDS bigshots are "guided" by the Holy Ghost.

So, by definition, LDS bigshots were "mis" guided....by the Holy Ghost!


P.S. I never took logic in college, so my reasoning may be a little off, but IMO it's still better than mopology logic.

The apologist and his apology are most fascinating.