Has LDS Doctrine Changed since Joseph Smith?

[LDS Physician]

Good question, and good responses. However, I don't think doctrine has changed, but rather, policies have changed. And I think many policy changes have been established to protect the Church from retribution, and others changed to keep as many members on board as possible and encourage others to get on board.
t

I guess polygamy was "policy" then ... because Section 101 in the 1835 version of the D&C said that monogamy was the way and that polygamy was not.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Nearly every "doctrine" introduced my Brigham was either reversed or abandoned.

[Robin Hood]

Oh heavens yes, the LDS no longer practice common consent.

I thought you were going to say, “the LDS no longer practice common sense.”

Well, there's that too.

[Dave62]

Is the Pope Catholic?

Does a Chicken have lips?

Does Hitler have a gas bill? (too soon for this dark humour, perhaps?)

[JLHPROF]

Good question, and good responses. However, I don't think doctrine has changed, but rather, policies have changed. And I think many policy changes have been established to protect the Church from retribution, and others changed to keep as many members on board as possible and encourage others to get on board.
t

I guess polygamy was "policy" then ... because Section 101 in the 1835 version of the D&C said that monogamy was the way and that polygamy was not.

The old D&C 101 was a policy statement drafted by Cowdery, not a revelation from God.
It had no doctrinal weight behind it.

[LDS Physician]

LOL

[Joan7]

Good question, and good responses. However, I don't think doctrine has changed, but rather, policies have changed. And I think many policy changes have been established to protect the Church from retribution, and others changed to keep as many members on board as possible and encourage others to get on board.
t

I guess polygamy was "policy" then ... because Section 101 in the 1835 version of the D&C said that monogamy was the way and that polygamy was not.

The old D&C 101 was a policy statement drafted by Cowdery, not a revelation from God.
It had no doctrinal weight behind it.

I challenge you to prove it was Cowdery. I challenge you to prove it was a draft. I challenge you to prove that it was simply a policy statement.
I am prepared to prove that none of your claims are true. All the proof is within the covers of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

[Luke]

Good question, and good responses. However, I don't think doctrine has changed, but rather, policies have changed. And I think many policy changes have been established to protect the Church from retribution, and others changed to keep as many members on board as possible and encourage others to get on board.
t

I guess polygamy was "policy" then ... because Section 101 in the 1835 version of the D&C said that monogamy was the way and that polygamy was not.

The old D&C 101 was a policy statement drafted by Cowdery, not a revelation from God.
It had no doctrinal weight behind it.

I challenge you to prove it was Cowdery. I challenge you to prove it was a draft. I challenge you to prove that it was simply a policy statement.
I am prepared to prove that none of your claims are true. All the proof is within the covers of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

Let’s see your proof, then.

[Luke]

Whereas Cowdery’s statement is just that, a statement, actual revelations such as the 1831, 1842, 1843, 1880, 1882, 1886, and 1889 Revelations all confirm that Celestial Plural Marriage is a sacred law of God, “God’s only path to endless lives” as Lorenzo Snow once phrased it.

[Luke]

Good question, and good responses. However, I don't think doctrine has changed, but rather, policies have changed. And I think many policy changes have been established to protect the Church from retribution, and others changed to keep as many members on board as possible and encourage others to get on board.
t

This is obviously untrue.

“The Temple ordinances can’t change” being changed to “they can change”, or “the Patriarchal Priesthood is a third order of Priesthood” to “it’s not” are absolutely doctrinal changes and have zero to do with policy.

This is weak, and you know that.

The Church has done many things on its own volition to alter its teachings, without the outside influence of anyone.

[Luke]

Good question, and good responses. However, I don't think doctrine has changed, but rather, policies have changed. And I think many policy changes have been established to protect the Church from retribution, and others changed to keep as many members on board as possible and encourage others to get on board.
t

During Brigham Young's time it was taught that you could only get to the celestial kingdom if you entered into plural marriage.

There are many more examples.

And Joseph Smith’s time from about 1843 onwards, albeit in private circles.

Although one correction: the “highest degree” of the Celestial Kingdom, not the Celestial Kingdom itself.

[nightlight]

Good question, and good responses. However, I don't think doctrine has changed, but rather, policies have changed. And I think many policy changes have been established to protect the Church from retribution, and others changed to keep as many members on board as possible and encourage others to get on board.
t

During Brigham Young's time it was taught that you could only get to the celestial kingdom if you entered into plural marriage.

There are many more examples.

And Joseph Smith’s time from about 1843 onwards, albeit in private circles.

Although one correction: the “highest degree” of the Celestial Kingdom, not the Celestial Kingdom itself.

“What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.”

[The Red Pill]

Good question, and good responses. However, I don't think doctrine has changed, but rather, policies have changed. And I think many policy changes have been established to protect the Church from retribution, and others changed to keep as many members on board as possible and encourage others to get on board.
t

I guess polygamy was "policy" then ... because Section 101 in the 1835 version of the D&C said that monogamy was the way and that polygamy was not.

The old D&C 101 was a policy statement drafted by Cowdery, not a revelation from God.
It had no doctrinal weight behind it.

Not entirely true. It was written by Cowdery, not a revelation...but:

The old D&C 101 was voted on by the FP, the 12, and the seventy...then voted on by the membership by common consent. It was canonized into the D&C and stayed there until 1876...when Brigham removed it and put the ridiculous, made by Brigham, section 132...which was NOT voted on by the quorums or the membership at all.

The old 101 sits on much firmer doctrinal ground than 132.

[JLHPROF]

Good question, and good responses. However, I don't think doctrine has changed, but rather, policies have changed. And I think many policy changes have been established to protect the Church from retribution, and others changed to keep as many members on board as possible and encourage others to get on board.
t

I guess polygamy was "policy" then ... because Section 101 in the 1835 version of the D&C said that monogamy was the way and that polygamy was not.

The old D&C 101 was a policy statement drafted by Cowdery, not a revelation from God.
It had no doctrinal weight behind it.

Not entirely true. It was written by Cowdery, not a revelation...but:

The old D&C 101 was voted on by the FP, the 12, and the seventy...then voted on by the membership by common consent. It was canonized into the D&C and stayed there until 1876...when Brigham removed it and put the ridiculous, made by Brigham, section 132...which was NOT voted on by the quorums or the membership at all.

The old 101 sits on much firmer doctrinal ground than 132.

The word of God always trumps policy statements regardless of common consent vote. We are to live by EVERY word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God. Not every policy we vote to be binding.
Common consent is a mortal Church policy. God rarely follows it in His actions.

As to whether 132 is a revelation - without it there is no other doctrinal origin for a LOT of eternal truths, even without plural marriage. I have a testimony that it came from God. Your mileage may vary.

[Reluctant Watchman]

The word of God always trumps policy statements regardless of common consent vote. We are to live by EVERY word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God. Not every policy we vote to be binding.
Common consent is a mortal Church policy. God rarely follows it in His actions.

You left out a very important part. You are assuming these "words" spoken by man are always God's words. We are to only listen to man when the Holy Ghost offers a witness of their truthfulness.

[Robin Hood]

Is the Pope Catholic?

Does a Chicken have lips?

Does Hitler have a gas bill? (too soon for this dark humour, perhaps?)

Topping himself to avoid a large gas bill was a bit extreme though. If I was him I would have simply moved to Argentina.

[The Red Pill]

I guess polygamy was "policy" then ... because Section 101 in the 1835 version of the D&C said that monogamy was the way and that polygamy was not.

The old D&C 101 was a policy statement drafted by Cowdery, not a revelation from God.
It had no doctrinal weight behind it.

Not entirely true. It was written by Cowdery, not a revelation...but:

The old D&C 101 was voted on by the FP, the 12, and the seventy...then voted on by the membership by common consent. It was canonized into the D&C and stayed there until 1876...when Brigham removed it and put the ridiculous, made by Brigham, section 132...which was NOT voted on by the quorums or the membership at all.

The old 101 sits on much firmer doctrinal ground than 132.

The word of God always trumps policy statements regardless of common consent vote. We are to live by EVERY word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God. Not every policy we vote to be binding.
Common consent is a mortal Church policy. God rarely follows it in His actions.

As to whether 132 is a revelation - without it there is no other doctrinal origin for a LOT of eternal truths, even without plural marriage. I have a testimony that it came from God. Your mileage may vary.

Again...the old D&C 101 was voted on by the FP, the 12, and the seventy...then voted on by the membership by common consent. It was LOT'S more than the common consent of just the members.

I personally don't believe 132 is true or came from God...but I respect your opinion.

[JLHPROF]

The old D&C 101 was a policy statement drafted by Cowdery, not a revelation from God.
It had no doctrinal weight behind it.

Not entirely true. It was written by Cowdery, not a revelation...but:

The old D&C 101 was voted on by the FP, the 12, and the seventy...then voted on by the membership by common consent. It was canonized into the D&C and stayed there until 1876...when Brigham removed it and put the ridiculous, made by Brigham, section 132...which was NOT voted on by the quorums or the membership at all.

The old 101 sits on much firmer doctrinal ground than 132.

The word of God always trumps policy statements regardless of common consent vote. We are to live by EVERY word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God. Not every policy we vote to be binding.
Common consent is a mortal Church policy. God rarely follows it in His actions.

As to whether 132 is a revelation - without it there is no other doctrinal origin for a LOT of eternal truths, even without plural marriage. I have a testimony that it came from God. Your mileage may vary.

Again...the old D&C 101 was voted on by the FP, the 12, and the seventy...then voted on by the membership by common consent. It was LOT'S more than the common consent of just the members.

I personally don't believe 132 is true or came from God...but I respect your opinion.

Written by Oliver.
Voted on by the FP, 12, 70, etc.
At what point did God establish the doctrine they were voting on? Was he involved?
I'm sorry but the old D&C 101 was never inspired scripture, even if we voted it into canon. Kind of like the Song of Solomon, the Manifesto, etc.
And there's a ton of revelation directly from the Lord that was never put to a vote.
I have zero respect for the term canon.
But I do respect people's right to believe what they choose.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Polygamy was/is a crime. There, there's your doctrine.

[JLHPROF]

Polygamy was/is a crime. There, there's your doctrine.

Someone should have told God when he kept giving the highest priesthood authority to polygamists. Too bad he didn't know. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David (pre-Bathsheba), Solomon, and many more. All favored of God while practicing polygamy.
And hey... Christ and his wives seemed ok with it too.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Polygamy was/is a crime. There, there's your doctrine.

Someone should have told God when he kept giving the highest priesthood authority to polygamists. Too bad he didn't know. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David (pre-Bathsheba), Solomon, and many more. All favored of God while practicing polygamy.
And hey... Christ and his wives seemed ok with it too.

Read Jacob 2 again. Polygamy was one of the reasons Jerusalem was destroyed. Your logic is the same false logic the Nephites used to justify their abominations.

[JLHPROF]

Polygamy was/is a crime. There, there's your doctrine.

Someone should have told God when he kept giving the highest priesthood authority to polygamists. Too bad he didn't know. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David (pre-Bathsheba), Solomon, and many more. All favored of God while practicing polygamy.
And hey... Christ and his wives seemed ok with it too.

Read Jacob 2 again. Polygamy was one of the reasons Jerusalem was destroyed. Your logic is the same false logic the Nephites used to justify their abominations.

I have read it, many, many times. And I disagree with your interpretation. And it doesn't address my point that God gave his highest blessings to men living polygamy without a single word of reproach.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Polygamy was/is a crime. There, there's your doctrine.

Someone should have told God when he kept giving the highest priesthood authority to polygamists. Too bad he didn't know. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David (pre-Bathsheba), Solomon, and many more. All favored of God while practicing polygamy.
And hey... Christ and his wives seemed ok with it too.

Read Jacob 2 again. Polygamy was one of the reasons Jerusalem was destroyed. Your logic is the same false logic the Nephites used to justify their abominations.

I have read it, many, many times. And I disagree with your interpretation. And it doesn't address my point that God gave his highest blessings to men living polygamy without a single word of reproach.

What “interpretation”? Jacob couldn’t be any more clear.

I fully believe that God can work among men and women for very specific dispensations. NONE of that is what happened with Brigham. Sex, murder, and lies. Oh, and normalizing sexual abuse and pedophilia under the guise of religion.

[JLHPROF]

Someone should have told God when he kept giving the highest priesthood authority to polygamists. Too bad he didn't know. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David (pre-Bathsheba), Solomon, and many more. All favored of God while practicing polygamy.
And hey... Christ and his wives seemed ok with it too.

Read Jacob 2 again. Polygamy was one of the reasons Jerusalem was destroyed. Your logic is the same false logic the Nephites used to justify their abominations.

I have read it, many, many times. And I disagree with your interpretation. And it doesn't address my point that God gave his highest blessings to men living polygamy without a single word of reproach.

What “interpretation”? Jacob couldn’t be any more clear.

I fully believe that God can work among men and women for very specific dispensations. NONE of that is what happened with Brigham. Sex, murder, and lies. Oh, and normalizing sexual abuse and pedophilia under the guise of religion.

Not even worth taking my thousandth trip down that road.
Jacob is clear. You've got it wrong. Polygamists like Abraham and Jacob were God's chosen priesthood lineages AND polygamists.
That's enough for me to know that polygamy is NOT the sin that caused Jacob 2.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Haha, sure.