Reader comments
The church and the global community

Beeswax | 8:47 a.m. April 7, 2009

The church has had no qualms about changing its doctrine and temple ceremonies to adapt to outside political pressure in the past, so it should have no problem adapting to other global pressures. Of course, it will bear little resemblance to the original "restored" church, but that does not seem to be important anyway.

To Beeswax | 11:17 a.m. April 7, 2009

I agree. If there is one constant with the LDS Church, it is change.

Why | 11:58 a.m. April 7, 2009

Do non-members or disaffected members even read Mormon Times? No, the doctrine hasn't changed. The presentation of it does sometimes change. And our understanding of it grows, including by the leaders of the Church. They are human and learning and growing just like the rest of us, and we don't believe they are perfect. I don't see how any organization that began in 1830 with 6 members could possibly be expected to look the same in 2009 with 13.5 million members.

Comments continue below

Because | 12:28 p.m. April 7, 2009

To Why,

Funny that your little apologetical bit of tripe is not recognized as equally valid for the Catholic and other Churches that YOUR Church Doctrine officially declares as "abominations" and "all corrupt"!

Whether you recognize it or not, the doctrine lf the LDS Church HAS CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY over the years! But the same thing happened to the Catholic Church. But when it happens to some other Church, YOU cry "Apostasy!"

Hypocrites. Well hath the Prophet said of you, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

RE Because | 1:04 p.m. April 7, 2009

Yep. Significantly changed is somewhat of an understatement. The church today is a far cry from the one Joseph Smith created.

But wait . . . | 1:49 p.m. April 7, 2009

Well, at least the sniping of its detractors is still as reliable as ever (or should we say predictable?)

Malcolm | 2:06 p.m. April 7, 2009

The church has changed its doctrine significantly on the meaning of the term Zion.You cannot have Zion without the United Order and equality but apparently now you can. even las vegas is now zion because there are stake there. The church has got weaker and weaker in its doctrine and has departed significantly from the teachings of the doctrine and covenants.

Missionaries | 2:27 p.m. April 7, 2009

I began taking instructions many years ago. What the Missionary present are the basics which sound good. Jesus came, died on the cross and rose from the dead. These sounded so basic and the Joseph Smith story was intriguing. What the Missionaries leave out are the King Follett Discourse,the plurality of Gods and the requirement of marriage to enter the Celestial Kingdom. They never mention Emmanuel Swedenbourg. No mention of the "deep doctrines". If the Missionaries would only be forthright in what your Church really believes it would be more honest. Instructions in the Catholic Faith takes almost a year for most before baptism. And please do not insult with the phrase "milk before meat". If you are not ashamed of your "deep doctrines", why not present them before someone submits to baptism? It would be more honest and prospective members would know exactly what the beliefs are they are about to agree to. No, I am not anti...not bitter former member...just a seeker of truth as we all should be.

Implementation Yes, Doctrine No. | 2:30 p.m. April 7, 2009

The United Order was an implementation of the Law of Consecration. It hardly constitutes the ONLY WAY that said law could be lived (in fact I've always felt it was a somewhat simplistic plan, because of its agrarian dependencies). By altering the means of implementation, one does not change doctrine. One merely changes the way a doctrine is practiced. The doctrines of the church have remained constant since we all discussed them in the premortal councils.

re because | 2:31 p.m. April 7, 2009

would like some cheese with your "whine"?

Mambo | 3:15 p.m. April 7, 2009

The doctrine of the Church has changed hardly at all. Two things of significance - abandoning Polygamy, and allowing any worthy male member to hold the Priesthood. Other than that, check the D&C - not much has changed. The brethren still preach obedience, scripture study, prayer, service, attending the temple, the fundamentals - faith, repentence, etc....and "keeping an eye single to the Glory of God"....not much different than the church of long ago. Most "visible" changes are not significant other than to accomodate the growth of the church worldwide and have nothing to do with doctrinal issues.

RMartin | 3:24 p.m. April 7, 2009

Chages? And?

Get over it...

Hypo....... | 5:13 p.m. April 7, 2009

To RMartin,

That is what the Methodist and Presbyterian preachers said to Joseph Smith! He didn't (get over it, that is).

LOL!

To Missionaries 2:27 p.m. | 5:23 p.m. April 7, 2009

The King Follett discourse and most of the other items you listed were never doctrines, "deep" or otherwise. Where are they canonized? You do not need to be married to enter the Celestial Kingdom, by the way, just its highest degree.

How can you teach what is not and never has been doctrine?

That we can all become what God is comes out in the basic discussions (deification). This used to be a basic staple of early Christianity that is now only found in the Eastern Orthodox churches and the LDS Church.

I think you illustrate the basic problem - taking as doctrine what never was, or confusing rules and applications and doctrine, or describing a doctrine in such a way that it sounds very different than what anyone believes.

RE: Missionaries | 5:45 p.m. April 7, 2009

MIlk before is ver valid statement.

You do not teach quantum physics to kindergartners,

educatiojn process and must learn line by preceptr on precept,

and you can not the advanced materials without learning the basics firsts,

Before learn differntial equations yu learn caluculus,

before learn caluclus you mustlearn advanced algeba

before you learn advanced algebra you learn badic algebra,

before algebra you must learn basic math,

before basic math you learn the most simplistic math and numbers.

so you see there is a pattern of learning,

of laying foundation on foundation building something greater and greater

there is not cousere learningdoe srate with the basics first,

it is not that someone can not tell you most advanced doctrines,

it just can understand and appreciate them with the basics first.

A developing child can not eat meat until they have developed enough to be able to handle it.

Honesty | 5:54 p.m. April 7, 2009

All talk changing doctines yet not one doctrine is ever mentioned.

The doctrine of polygamy did not change, only the practive of it,

and that was done to follow another doctrine: we believe in following the laws of the land,

but the LDS have NEVER stopped believing in polygamy nor the teaching of it.

Not talking negatively of other churches,
is different than believing they are NOT the true church, and it was God that said they are "abominations" and "all corrupt" (and who should know better than him!)

But there has been no doctrinal change (THE ONLY CHANGE THAT MATTERS!),

only doctrinal increase as the people became ready for it and asked for further enlightenment.

Missionaries | 6:45 p.m. April 7, 2009

re:Missionaries@5:45
If I am wrong, I will readily admit it but there is something that disturbs me about your response. Are you saying that when Joseph Smith
gave the King Follett Discourse he was not revealing under Divine inspiration that God was once a mortal man and dwelt on an earth as we do now and that as he progressed to deification by obedience and acquiring knowledge? So the Law of Eternal progression is not a doctrine of your Church. I am not trying to be argumentative, just having problem with what you consider doctrine and what you don't and how you decide what is and what isn't? Thank you for your response. It was kind to answer. ( and to 5:45 poster...I can't make a bit of sense of any of what you posted. sorry.)

Spencer | 12:58 a.m. April 8, 2009

After being a member for over fifty years, I have seen no fundamental change in any doctrine of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For those who harp and carp about doctrine changes, perhaps you shoud read the Doctrines and Covenants and learn that as the church grows, the Lord revealed more and more of his plan to the Prophets. Each Prophet opens another door to the Lord's Kingdom! Each war that we have fought has opened more doors, so it will be for the war that we are now in. The missionaries should be ever grateful for the men and women of the armed services that open the doors for their missionary work! They put their lives on the line, while you take time out to serve on a mission.

Bill | 7:53 a.m. April 8, 2009

The overall doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has never actually changed.

The practice of Pologamy was stopped but the overall teaching of it as far as doctrine is concerned has not. If a member is found to be practicing pologamy today they will be excommunicated. It isn't a change in doctrine only in practice.

Giving all worthy male members the priesthood was taught from the very beginning that all males would eventually get the priesthood. What many people have a problem with is that what they perceive as a change because of political pressure or social pressure means we changed doctrine. That is far from the truth. Ask yourselves these questions?

If the LDS Church had allowed everyone to hold the priesthood from the beginning would it have grown across the US or the World. Many of the males were allowed to be baptized and to have the Holy Ghost confired upon them, they just couldn't hold the priesthood. Many joined and waited for the day to come. I suggest to many to read what President Kimball and others went through in agonizing over this profound revelation.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.