Has LDS Doctrine Changed since Joseph Smith?

[HereWeGo]

Oh Fun. Another Slug Fest.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Oh Fun. Another Slug Fest.

Oh, come on.

Being passive about these topics is what led the LDS church down to the corrupt state they are in. If it wasn't sanctioned by the Lord, then we gave a green light to sexual abuse and one of the great abominations of this world.

[Luke]

Oh Fun. Another Slug Fest.

Oh, come on.

Being passive about these topics is what led the LDS church down to the corrupt state they are in. If it wasn't sanctioned by the Lord, then we gave a green light to sexual abuse and one of the great abominations of this world.

Fortunately, it was sanctioned by the Lord, so it's all good.

[lundbaek]

Back on Page 1 of this thread, Niemand commented that "the Constitution is off the table". It sure has seemed that way in recent years, until President Oaks put it back on the table, especially with his words in the April 2021 General Conference that “Our belief in divine inspiration gives Latter-day Saints a unique responsibility to uphold and defend the United States Constitution and principles of constitutionalism wherever we live.”

And in that connection it may be of interest to some that in my dozen or more years living in Europe more than a few Latter-day Saints expressed to me their respect for the American form of government and wished they could live under such a Constitution as we have. In particular, one was our bishop when we lived in England. Three were Danes I met with at our monthly bishops training meetings during our mission in Denmark. A fourth Dane was our branch secretary who was active in the Danish Conservative Party. And a fifth Dane maintains a website “Freedom Under Pressure” (https://www.proz.com/kudoz/danish-to-en ... -pres.html) which discusses conditions that threaten liberty today and the Constitution of the United States. Also, a Norwegian LDS even asked me to send him a list of materials to help him in teaching his family the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

I mention this only because of the mistaken belief of many people, LDS included, that the U.S. Constitution is only of interest to and appreciated by some Americans.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Back on Page 1 of this thread, Niemand commented that "the Constitution is off the table". It sure has seemed that way in recent years, until President Oaks put it back on the table, especially with his words in the April 2021 General Conference that “Our belief in divine inspiration gives Latter-day Saints a unique responsibility to uphold and defend the United States Constitution and principles of constitutionalism wherever we live.”

And in that connection it may be of interest to some that in my dozen or more years living in Europe more than a few Latter-day Saints expressed to me their respect for the American form of government and wished they could live under such a Constitution as we have. In particular, one was our bishop when we lived in England. Three were Danes I met with at our monthly bishops training meetings during our mission in Denmark. A fourth Dane was our branch secretary who was active in the Danish Conservative Party. And a fifth Dane maintains a website “Freedom Under Pressure” (https://www.proz.com/kudoz/danish-to-en ... -pres.html) which discusses conditions that threaten liberty today and the Constitution of the United States. Also, a Norwegian LDS even asked me to send him a list of materials to help him in teaching his family the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

I mention this only because of the mistaken belief of many people, LDS included, that the U.S. Constitution is only of interest to and appreciated by some Americans.

Oaks has also stated that individual rights can sometimes take a back seat. "For the greater good."

I'm not quoting him btw.

[Niemand]

Back on Page 1 of this thread, Niemand commented that "the Constitution is off the table". It sure has seemed that way in recent years, until President Oaks put it back on the table, especially with his words in the April 2021 General Conference that “Our belief in divine inspiration gives Latter-day Saints a unique responsibility to uphold and defend the United States Constitution and principles of constitutionalism wherever we live.”

And in that connection it may be of interest to some that in my dozen or more years living in Europe more than a few Latter-day Saints expressed to me their respect for the American form of government and wished they could live under such a Constitution as we have. In particular, one was our bishop when we lived in England. Three were Danes I met with at our monthly bishops training meetings during our mission in Denmark. A fourth Dane was our branch secretary who was active in the Danish Conservative Party. And a fifth Dane maintains a website “Freedom Under Pressure” (https://www.proz.com/kudoz/danish-to-en ... -pres.html) which discusses conditions that threaten liberty today and the Constitution of the United States. Also, a Norwegian LDS even asked me to send him a list of materials to help him in teaching his family the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

I mention this only because of the mistaken belief of many people, LDS included, that the U.S. Constitution is only of interest to and appreciated by some Americans.

As a foreigner I have a strange relationship with the US Constitution. Is it perfect? No it certainly is not. It is a human document, and has inevitable flaws and problems. However, it is also clear that it is one of the greatest things to come out of the USA.

Foreign countries can benefit from taking the best elements from the US constitution and using it as a model for their own ones. The more US-centric parts can be removed and replaced with local references and maybe one or two things added/clarified for the modern day.

The most important thing is that such a constitution is living, i.e. it is respected and enforced. Without that, it is just a dead document, a bit of paper, and no good to anyone. As we know, I'm afraid the US Constitution is not always enforced and respected.

I have argued for years that we could do with a version of the Bill of Rights in this country. The US Bill of Rights guarantees a number of basic human rights (without getting into stupid territory) and is also a reasonably easy document to understand. In contrast, in order to find out my various rights in this country I have to consult whole libraries of lawbooks (which are barely intelligible) and rely on judges and lawyers. We have so many contradictory documents in this country. It is often hard to point to one and say "My rights are X, Y and Z".

[Niemand]

Oaks has also stated that individual rights can sometimes take a back seat. "For the greater good."

There are only a few circumstances where that is a legitimate argument. For example, if someone lives right next to a lot of other people it is not fair for them to play loud music at 4 am on a workday and keep them all awake. That would be such an exception, because it is an attack on the other people's right to have a good night's sleep. In the case of this Covid stuff, it is clear that there have been lies and abuse, so it would not fit into this category.

What must be borne in mind though is that there is no society, collective nor "greater good" without individuals. No individuals, no society. If you aren't looking after the individual, you aren't looking after society as a whole.

[Joan7]

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.

In the Preface of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, there stands this bold testament:

We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced, in that day when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed, and the reward of every man’s labor be given him.

That was signed by
JOSEPH SMITH jr.
OLIVER COWDERY.
SIDNEY RIGDON.
F[rederick] G. WILLIAMS.
Kirtland, Ohio, February 17, 1835.

Therefore, I know God was involved. I know it is revelation. I know that Joseph Smith was personally involved in the writing of that Section.
If you take Joseph Smith out of that Revelation, and throw it to the ground, you destroy the faith, you destroy the foundation that God had him build through the Word. Right there, the Prophet declares it true.

If you choose to discount his testimony on that page, why do you even believe anything he wrote? Why are you here?

[SJR3t2]

sadly a ton, I show some here
https://seekingyhwh.org/resources/lds/

[JandD6572]

By way of my above comments, in a 1941 letter signed by the First Presidency, we read "
“In the first place, we should tell you that it is a part of the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, as much a part as any other tenet of our religion, that the Lord Himself “established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood”, and that this Constitution “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and hole principles.” Our people believe that they have a special relationship to the Constitution and its preservation.”

In a Church publication "Principles of the Gospel", Pg. 136, we read "Unless we as members of the Church do all we can to preserve the freedoms we, have, within the bounds of the laws of God, we will be held accountable."

In recent years, and I dare say recent decades, the Church authorities no longer teach these things; at least not that I know of. When President Benson stated in the October 1987 General Conference that "We must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers." I believe that was the last such commandment on that subject until the April 2021 General Conference, when President Oaks stated "We should learn and advocate the inspired principles of the Constitution".

At our very recent stake conference our stake president asked the visiting 70, Elder Rascon, to say something about the US Constitution, the 235 anniversary of which was the day before. He only reminded us of what is written about it in the D&C; nothing about our learning its principles.

I don't see change of doctrine there, but I certainly do see change in policy.

my take on all this is bull sh@3t. your right, Benson was the last to fully live, love and support the constitution. many of your leaders do today, but only if you are not tipping the boat. other words, they supported our founding fathers rising up against a dictator of king, but don't we dare even think about standing up against dictating government we have today in our own land. Once, we were taught to uphold, and defend the constitution, now if we even stir the pot just a little, we are condemned, because this isn't the Lords way, oh, I'm sorry, 200 plus years ago it was, but not no more? seems they talk a good talk until it comes right down to actually wanting to defend it. Seems lately, "THE" church is painting a very weak God.

[JandD6572]

Can anyone give some examples of doctrine that you believe has been changed?

I think the doctrine of liberty, and the "tenet of our religion, that the Lord Himself established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood”, and that this Constitution “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and whole principles.” has been swept under the rug. Or at least so it seems to me.

would the word of wisdom be doctrine or policy? at first it was given as a choice, then apparently, God changed his mind and made it a commandment? Same as polygamy, (which I appose) so, it was initiated by God, but then God said we have to stop, because it was offensive to the government? Not the same God I know when leading the Israelites out of Egypt.

[blitzinstripes]

By way of my above comments, in a 1941 letter signed by the First Presidency, we read "
“In the first place, we should tell you that it is a part of the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, as much a part as any other tenet of our religion, that the Lord Himself “established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood”, and that this Constitution “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and hole principles.” Our people believe that they have a special relationship to the Constitution and its preservation.”

In a Church publication "Principles of the Gospel", Pg. 136, we read "Unless we as members of the Church do all we can to preserve the freedoms we, have, within the bounds of the laws of God, we will be held accountable."

In recent years, and I dare say recent decades, the Church authorities no longer teach these things; at least not that I know of. When President Benson stated in the October 1987 General Conference that "We must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers." I believe that was the last such commandment on that subject until the April 2021 General Conference, when President Oaks stated "We should learn and advocate the inspired principles of the Constitution".

At our very recent stake conference our stake president asked the visiting 70, Elder Rascon, to say something about the US Constitution, the 235 anniversary of which was the day before. He only reminded us of what is written about it in the D&C; nothing about our learning its principles.

I don't see change of doctrine there, but I certainly do see change in policy.

my take on all this is bull sh@3t. your right, Benson was the last to fully live, love and support the constitution. many of your leaders do today, but only if you are not tipping the boat. other words, they supported our founding fathers rising up against a dictator of king, but don't we dare even think about standing up against dictating government we have today in our own land. Once, we were taught to uphold, and defend the constitution, now if we even stir the pot just a little, we are condemned, because this isn't the Lords way, oh, I'm sorry, 200 plus years ago it was, but not no more? seems they talk a good talk until it comes right down to actually wanting to defend it. Seems lately, "THE" church is painting a very weak God.

Agree. I watched the Ammon Bundy headlines closely. I still believe that the Bundy standoff (and the January 6th protest) were the most patriotic things I've seen in my lifetime. I believe it's exactly the type of stuff that Moroni would have done. But the church couldn't distance themselves from those events quickly enough, and outright condemned them publicly. SMH When did we become such a generation of bootlickers?

[JandD6572]

By way of my above comments, in a 1941 letter signed by the First Presidency, we read "
“In the first place, we should tell you that it is a part of the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, as much a part as any other tenet of our religion, that the Lord Himself “established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood”, and that this Constitution “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and hole principles.” Our people believe that they have a special relationship to the Constitution and its preservation.”

In a Church publication "Principles of the Gospel", Pg. 136, we read "Unless we as members of the Church do all we can to preserve the freedoms we, have, within the bounds of the laws of God, we will be held accountable."

In recent years, and I dare say recent decades, the Church authorities no longer teach these things; at least not that I know of. When President Benson stated in the October 1987 General Conference that "We must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers." I believe that was the last such commandment on that subject until the April 2021 General Conference, when President Oaks stated "We should learn and advocate the inspired principles of the Constitution".

At our very recent stake conference our stake president asked the visiting 70, Elder Rascon, to say something about the US Constitution, the 235 anniversary of which was the day before. He only reminded us of what is written about it in the D&C; nothing about our learning its principles.

I don't see change of doctrine there, but I certainly do see change in policy.

my take on all this is bull sh@3t. your right, Benson was the last to fully live, love and support the constitution. many of your leaders do today, but only if you are not tipping the boat. other words, they supported our founding fathers rising up against a dictator of king, but don't we dare even think about standing up against dictating government we have today in our own land. Once, we were taught to uphold, and defend the constitution, now if we even stir the pot just a little, we are condemned, because this isn't the Lords way, oh, I'm sorry, 200 plus years ago it was, but not no more? seems they talk a good talk until it comes right down to actually wanting to defend it. Seems lately, "THE" church is painting a very weak God.

Agree. I watched the Ammon Bundy headlines closely. I still believe that the Bundy standoff (and the January 6th protest) were the most patriotic things I've seen in my lifetime. I believe it's exactly the type of stuff that Moroni would have done. But the church couldn't distance themselves from those events quickly enough, and outright condemned them publicly. SMH When did we become such a generation of bootlickers?

Amen to that!!!

[innocentoldguy]

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

The doctrine has changed. You can find evidence in the Doctrine and Covenants.

1831 from Joseph Smith
Doctrine and Covenants 64
23 Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.

1832 from Joseph Smith
Doctrine and Covenants 85
1 It is the duty of the Lord’s clerk, whom he has appointed, to keep a history, and a general church record of all things that transpire in Zion, and of all those who consecrate properties, and receive inheritances legally from the bishop;

2 And also their manner of life, their faith, and works; and also of the apostates who apostatize after receiving their inheritances.

3 It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law, which he has given, that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God.

1833 from Joseph Smith
Doctrine and Covenants 97
11 Yea, let it be built speedily, by the tithing of my people.

12 Behold, this is the tithing and the sacrifice which I, the Lord, require at their hands, that there may be a house built unto me for the salvation of Zion—

13 For a place of thanksgiving for all saints, and for a place of instruction for all those who are called to the work of the ministry in all their several callings and offices;

First published by Brigham Young at the end of 1844
Doctrine and Covenants 119
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,

2 For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church.

3 And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.

4 And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

5 Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.

The first three laws Joseph teaches are by invitation, and involves Consecration. People are not refused baptism if they don't pay tithing.

When Brigham took over, everything changed. It was force "turn over all your surplus", just to get baptized. The entire tone changes in section 119. These are demands.

What you're complaining about is spiritual evolution.

Think about it in terms of children. As humans, we walk, run, work, feed ourselves, clean ourselves, talk, etc. Babies can't do any of that, so we don't require them to do these things. As they grow, though, we teach them and place increasingly greater expectations on them with the hopes that by the time they reach adulthood, they'll be able to do all the human things themselves. We're still babies, toddlers, and teens in our eternal evolution. As we progress, more will be expected of us until we can function like God.

In both cases, the principles of adulthood and godhood haven't changed. What changes is our ability to understand and abide by the requirements of those positions.

There are plenty of examples of this throughout the scriptures. For example:

1. The Word of Wisdom going from an invitation to a commandment.
2. Christ pushing the Jews from the Mosaic law to the Law of the Gospel.
3.Tithing eventually converting to the Law of Consecration.

So, yes. There have been changes and there will continue to be changes as we continue to evolve. We shouldn't be concerned about change. What should concern us is stagnation.

[innocentoldguy]

Oh Fun. Another Slug Fest.

Oh, come on.

Being passive about these topics is what led the LDS church down to the corrupt state they are in. If it wasn't sanctioned by the Lord, then we gave a green light to sexual abuse and one of the great abominations of this world.

What are you talking about?

[Reluctant Watchman]

Oh Fun. Another Slug Fest.

Oh, come on.

Being passive about these topics is what led the LDS church down to the corrupt state they are in. If it wasn't sanctioned by the Lord, then we gave a green light to sexual abuse and one of the great abominations of this world.

What are you talking about?

You must have missed the context for your perceived "slug fest." We were talking about polygamy.

[innocentoldguy]

By way of my above comments, in a 1941 letter signed by the First Presidency, we read "
“In the first place, we should tell you that it is a part of the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, as much a part as any other tenet of our religion, that the Lord Himself “established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood”, and that this Constitution “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and hole principles.” Our people believe that they have a special relationship to the Constitution and its preservation.”

In a Church publication "Principles of the Gospel", Pg. 136, we read "Unless we as members of the Church do all we can to preserve the freedoms we, have, within the bounds of the laws of God, we will be held accountable."

In recent years, and I dare say recent decades, the Church authorities no longer teach these things; at least not that I know of. When President Benson stated in the October 1987 General Conference that "We must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers." I believe that was the last such commandment on that subject until the April 2021 General Conference, when President Oaks stated "We should learn and advocate the inspired principles of the Constitution".

At our very recent stake conference our stake president asked the visiting 70, Elder Rascon, to say something about the US Constitution, the 235 anniversary of which was the day before. He only reminded us of what is written about it in the D&C; nothing about our learning its principles.

I don't see change of doctrine there, but I certainly do see change in policy.

my take on all this is bull sh@3t. your right, Benson was the last to fully live, love and support the constitution. many of your leaders do today, but only if you are not tipping the boat. other words, they supported our founding fathers rising up against a dictator of king, but don't we dare even think about standing up against dictating government we have today in our own land. Once, we were taught to uphold, and defend the constitution, now if we even stir the pot just a little, we are condemned, because this isn't the Lords way, oh, I'm sorry, 200 plus years ago it was, but not no more? seems they talk a good talk until it comes right down to actually wanting to defend it. Seems lately, "THE" church is painting a very weak God.

What would you like to see?

[innocentoldguy]

Oh Fun. Another Slug Fest.

Oh, come on.

Being passive about these topics is what led the LDS church down to the corrupt state they are in. If it wasn't sanctioned by the Lord, then we gave a green light to sexual abuse and one of the great abominations of this world.

What are you talking about?

You must have missed the context for your perceived "slug fest." We were talking about polygamy.

No, I get that. What are you calling "sexual abuse" and "the great abominations of this world"?

[Reluctant Watchman]

No, I get that. What are you calling "sexual abuse" and "the great abominations of this world"?

If polygamy wasn't sanctioned by the Lord in the early church, then they essentially normalized sexual abuse. Unsanctioned polygamy is sexually objectifying and abusing women and children. I say children, because Brigham married very young girls. We call that pedophilia today.

I use the term "great abomination" because that is the phrase Jacob uses in his description of unauthorized polygamy. The Savior prophesied that the gentiles would commit abominations in the last days. That is sexual sin explicitly.

Joseph wasn't a polygamist IMO. He was condemning the practice right up until a few months before he was murdered, and he would have allegedly been practicing it for some time at this point. He either didn't practice it, or he was a fallen prophet and a damned liar.

[innocentoldguy]

By way of my above comments, in a 1941 letter signed by the First Presidency, we read "
“In the first place, we should tell you that it is a part of the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, as much a part as any other tenet of our religion, that the Lord Himself “established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood”, and that this Constitution “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and hole principles.” Our people believe that they have a special relationship to the Constitution and its preservation.”

In a Church publication "Principles of the Gospel", Pg. 136, we read "Unless we as members of the Church do all we can to preserve the freedoms we, have, within the bounds of the laws of God, we will be held accountable."

In recent years, and I dare say recent decades, the Church authorities no longer teach these things; at least not that I know of. When President Benson stated in the October 1987 General Conference that "We must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers." I believe that was the last such commandment on that subject until the April 2021 General Conference, when President Oaks stated "We should learn and advocate the inspired principles of the Constitution".

At our very recent stake conference our stake president asked the visiting 70, Elder Rascon, to say something about the US Constitution, the 235 anniversary of which was the day before. He only reminded us of what is written about it in the D&C; nothing about our learning its principles.

I don't see change of doctrine there, but I certainly do see change in policy.

my take on all this is bull sh@3t. your right, Benson was the last to fully live, love and support the constitution. many of your leaders do today, but only if you are not tipping the boat. other words, they supported our founding fathers rising up against a dictator of king, but don't we dare even think about standing up against dictating government we have today in our own land. Once, we were taught to uphold, and defend the constitution, now if we even stir the pot just a little, we are condemned, because this isn't the Lords way, oh, I'm sorry, 200 plus years ago it was, but not no more? seems they talk a good talk until it comes right down to actually wanting to defend it. Seems lately, "THE" church is painting a very weak God.

Agree. I watched the Ammon Bundy headlines closely. I still believe that the Bundy standoff (and the January 6th protest) were the most patriotic things I've seen in my lifetime. I believe it's exactly the type of stuff that Moroni would have done. But the church couldn't distance themselves from those events quickly enough, and outright condemned them publicly. SMH When did we become such a generation of bootlickers?

Amen to that!!!

The church takes a firm stance on the 12th Article of Faith. This is why we no longer practice polygamy, it is why President Nelson encouraged us to be "good global citizens" and get vaccinated, and it is probably why the church doesn't get too involved in political/social battles. At least not in the heat of the moment. Instead, they do things like publishing their proclamation on the family a couple of decades before the alphabet brigade became militant perpetrators of predatorial grooming and violence.

Elder Soares came and spoke in our stake last week and he made a good point. The purpose of the church is salvation, not social issues. The Lord has told us for thousands of years that the world was going to be "perilous" right before his return and that HE was going to solve that problem. It could be a simple matter of the Lord having a greater understanding and different priorities that we do.

[Niemand]

The purpose of the church is salvation, not social issues.

The lepers were a social issue. The woman caught in adultery was a social issue. The traders in the temple were a social issue. Even the story of the prodigal son was full of "social issues."

[innocentoldguy]

The purpose of the church is salvation, not social issues.

The lepers were a social issue. The woman caught in adultery was a social issue. The traders in the temple were a social issue. Even the story of the prodigal son was full of "social issues."

I disagree on the last three. Those are all issues of personal salvation or at least have a significant component of salvation mixed in. The first is a disease. Pure social issues would be things like climate change, overpopulation, election fraud, politics, etc. Whether the climate changes or not has no bearing on your salvation.

[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

The doctrine has changed. You can find evidence in the Doctrine and Covenants.

1831 from Joseph Smith
Doctrine and Covenants 64
23 Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.

1832 from Joseph Smith
Doctrine and Covenants 85
1 It is the duty of the Lord’s clerk, whom he has appointed, to keep a history, and a general church record of all things that transpire in Zion, and of all those who consecrate properties, and receive inheritances legally from the bishop;

2 And also their manner of life, their faith, and works; and also of the apostates who apostatize after receiving their inheritances.

3 It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law, which he has given, that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God.

1833 from Joseph Smith
Doctrine and Covenants 97
11 Yea, let it be built speedily, by the tithing of my people.

12 Behold, this is the tithing and the sacrifice which I, the Lord, require at their hands, that there may be a house built unto me for the salvation of Zion—

13 For a place of thanksgiving for all saints, and for a place of instruction for all those who are called to the work of the ministry in all their several callings and offices;

First published by Brigham Young at the end of 1844
Doctrine and Covenants 119
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,

2 For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church.

3 And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.

4 And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

5 Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.

The first three laws Joseph teaches are by invitation, and involves Consecration. People are not refused baptism if they don't pay tithing.

When Brigham took over, everything changed. It was force "turn over all your surplus", just to get baptized. The entire tone changes in section 119. These are demands.

What you're complaining about is spiritual evolution.

Think about it in terms of children. As humans, we walk, run, work, feed ourselves, clean ourselves, talk, etc. Babies can't do any of that, so we don't require them to do these things. As they grow, though, we teach them and place increasingly greater expectations on them with the hopes that by the time they reach adulthood, they'll be able to do all the human things themselves. We're still babies, toddlers, and teens in our eternal evolution. As we progress, more will be expected of us until we can function like God.

In both cases, the principles of adulthood and godhood haven't changed. What changes is our ability to understand and abide by the requirements of those positions.

There are plenty of examples of this throughout the scriptures. For example:

1. The Word of Wisdom going from an invitation to a commandment.
2. Christ pushing the Jews from the Mosaic law to the Law of the Gospel.
3.Tithing eventually converting to the Law of Consecration.

So, yes. There have been changes and there will continue to be changes as we continue to evolve. We shouldn't be concerned about change. What should concern us is stagnation.

You can spiritually evolve yourself right out of God's presence. Think about this... through Joseph's life, he and the Church were committed to the law of consecration and the law of tithing. They were living both. The minute he dies, at the hands of murderers, Brigham overthrows that and reduces it to a hollow shell of what it had been.

[innocentoldguy]

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

The doctrine has changed. You can find evidence in the Doctrine and Covenants.

1831 from Joseph Smith
Doctrine and Covenants 64
23 Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.

1832 from Joseph Smith
Doctrine and Covenants 85
1 It is the duty of the Lord’s clerk, whom he has appointed, to keep a history, and a general church record of all things that transpire in Zion, and of all those who consecrate properties, and receive inheritances legally from the bishop;

2 And also their manner of life, their faith, and works; and also of the apostates who apostatize after receiving their inheritances.

3 It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law, which he has given, that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God.

1833 from Joseph Smith
Doctrine and Covenants 97
11 Yea, let it be built speedily, by the tithing of my people.

12 Behold, this is the tithing and the sacrifice which I, the Lord, require at their hands, that there may be a house built unto me for the salvation of Zion—

13 For a place of thanksgiving for all saints, and for a place of instruction for all those who are called to the work of the ministry in all their several callings and offices;

First published by Brigham Young at the end of 1844
Doctrine and Covenants 119
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,

2 For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church.

3 And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.

4 And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

5 Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.

The first three laws Joseph teaches are by invitation, and involves Consecration. People are not refused baptism if they don't pay tithing.

When Brigham took over, everything changed. It was force "turn over all your surplus", just to get baptized. The entire tone changes in section 119. These are demands.

What you're complaining about is spiritual evolution.

Think about it in terms of children. As humans, we walk, run, work, feed ourselves, clean ourselves, talk, etc. Babies can't do any of that, so we don't require them to do these things. As they grow, though, we teach them and place increasingly greater expectations on them with the hopes that by the time they reach adulthood, they'll be able to do all the human things themselves. We're still babies, toddlers, and teens in our eternal evolution. As we progress, more will be expected of us until we can function like God.

In both cases, the principles of adulthood and godhood haven't changed. What changes is our ability to understand and abide by the requirements of those positions.

There are plenty of examples of this throughout the scriptures. For example:

1. The Word of Wisdom going from an invitation to a commandment.
2. Christ pushing the Jews from the Mosaic law to the Law of the Gospel.
3.Tithing eventually converting to the Law of Consecration.

So, yes. There have been changes and there will continue to be changes as we continue to evolve. We shouldn't be concerned about change. What should concern us is stagnation.

You can spiritually evolve yourself right out of God's presence. Think about this... through Joseph's life, he and the Church were committed to the law of consecration and the law of tithing. They were living both. The minute he dies, at the hands of murderers, Brigham overthrows that and reduces it to a hollow shell of what it had been.

Tithing is part of the Law of Consecration. "They were living both," is like saying, "Today, I'm wearing sleeves and a shirt."

Also, church members were practicing the Law of Consecration in Utah after Brigham Young died. I can't see how he could have overthrown it while dead. The Law of Consecration ended due to things like member greed, flooding, and the Edmunds Act of 1882, not Brigham Young "overthrowing" it.

Furthermore, the church's welfare program, the perpetual immigration/education funds, Deseret Industries program, tithing, fast-offerings, ministering, fulfilling callings, and other donations of money, goods, and time are all parts of the Law of Consecration, most of which we still live today.