Comments about ‘A few of the oldest, longest continuous things in the LDS Church’

It is very interesting to me, though not surprising, that the oldest, longest, continuous things in the LDS church are buildings and not doctrines.

Wonderful legacies. I think this article provides an example for each of us - to create long lasting things in our own lives - traditions and such. For us, we got married nearly nine years ago and moved to a little farm. At each October General Conference - Saturday after Priesthood, we have a "Harvest Festival" at our house. The idea is for the wives to gather at our place to gab and prepare while the brethren attend the priesthood session at the stake center. Then, we congregate at our place for chilli, scones, and pie. This coming conference will be our ninth annual gathering. Our first gathering was attended by two or three and we have since had as many as twenty or more.

The idea was to create a fun tradition that would help our children look forward to General Conference. Granted, its not a tradition that has lasted for a hundred years, not even close, but traditions all start somewhere and in a few generations . . . .

An observation:On the "Medal of Honor 'Winner'". The word 'winner'ia inappropriate in conjunction with the Medal of Honor.The proper word is 'recipient'.The Medal of Honor is not an award for winning a contest,nor is is sought as such by those who are seleceted and honoured to recieve it. The word 'winner' both demeans and diminshes the recipient and purpose of the award,and the extraordinary acts of valour "above and beyond' the call of duty the lead to its'issuence to an individual.

To Brahmabull - It appears that the DesNews chose to focus on "things" and not to include doctrinal principals. If so, the article would have run for many, many pages, and would have been criticized as a missionary lesson.

This article is not a complete list by any means. Surprisingly, the author does not include the most recognized "longest" thing connected to the LDS Church, which is the Mormon Tabernacle Choir's Sunday morning program of Music and the Spoken Word. The "longest continual network broadcast in history." Now in its 84th Year.

SLC MOM - Doctrine is a "thing" and no the list would not be very long.

Oldest continously operating branch/district in the Church: Tubuai Branch, later district on the Island of Tubuai, French Polynesia organized by Addison Pratt in July, 1844.

@Brahmabull

"It is very interesting to me, though not surprising, that the oldest, longest, continuous things in the LDS church are buildings and not doctrines."

@SLCMom

"To Brahmabull - It appears that the DesNews chose to focus on "things" and not to include doctrinal principals. If so, the article would have run for many, many pages, and would have been criticized as a missionary lesson. "

Well this is obvious. The doctrines, teachings, rituals, beliefs, etc have changed too many times over the years to be among the oldest and longest continuous things in the LDS church.

Oldest things that shouldn't have changed if the LDS church God's one true church.

1. First Vision accounts by Joseph Smith
The LDS church has settled on the 4th and final version of the First Vision that was published in 1838, 18 years following the alleged year by Joseph Smith

2. Book of Mormon changes
Doctrines in the book have changed in the book that are substantive, not to mention thousands of typos in the "most correct book."

3. Temple ordinances changes
Joseph Smith first introduced the temple ordinances in the early 1840s that have undergone at least 6 major changes that I have researched and 2 of which that have happened in the last 22 years.

4. Plural marriage
First it was an abomination as stated in the Book of Mormon, then Joseph Smith hid it then he finally embraced it openly, then the church had to abandon it because of political pressure from the US government.

5. Blacks and the priesthood
First blacks could have it as Joseph Smith ordained at least one black man to the priesthood, then blacks would never hold it per Brigham Young then since 1978 all worthy males can hold it.

Dear LaValfre and Thinkman. Doctrine has not changed since the church was founded. Principles based on doctrine have not changed. Practices have changed. Please read Elder Bednar's Book, "Increase in Learning", to help you understand the difference between Doctrine, Principles and practices. I have been a member for over 70 years and not once has a Doctrine changed during that time. Again, you are getting doctrine, principles and practices all mixed up.

@CougarBlue

"Dear LaValfre and Thinkman. Doctrine has not changed since the church was founded. Principles based on doctrine have not changed. Practices have changed. Please read Elder Bednar's Book, "Increase in Learning", to help you understand the difference between Doctrine, Principles and practices. I have been a member for over 70 years and not once has a Doctrine changed during that time. Again, you are getting doctrine, principles and practices all mixed up."

What's your point? Practices, beliefs, rituals ... are you saying none of these things have changed? They've changed drastically. Heck the BOM itself has had many MANY revisions. So why don't you explain, with your 70 years of experience, why so many things have, and continue, to change when convenient for the church?

@CougarBlue

So the church does says one thing and does another?

Also, if you can change practices so easily, why not allow gay marriage?

Or, even better yet, why not allow people to invite all their family and friends to a wedding, not just the ones approved by some local bishop somewhere? That would certainly be inline with the Mormon Church's "stated" goal of bringing families closer together.

@ CougarBlue

You'll notice that some posters don't really want to understand. They just want a place to express their anger at the LDS church. Their questions are retorical.

Your point was politely stated and accurate. 70 years of experience carries more weight than angry opinions.

Mukkake-
Accepting gay marriage would not be a change in practice, but a change in doctrine.
Letting anyone enter the temple would also be a change in doctrine.

LValfre-
You didn't read CougarBlue's post very carefully, did you?

cougarblue - nice try. Doctrine has changed. Practices have changed. Polygamy is stated as a doctrine in the doctrine and covenants. President Hinckley said as prophet, seer, and revelator that polygamy is "not doctrinal". You can't have it both ways. Either it was never doctrinal and was still taught as doctrinal or it was and still is. Otherwise it changed. There are many changes in doctrine, you just can't see them for some reason.

@jeanie

"LValfre-
You didn't read CougarBlue's post very carefully, did you?"

Jeanie, with all due respect, where do you draw the line anymore on what's doctrine, practice, prophecy, principle, mistake, belief, misunderstanding, practice, free mason, mormon, myth, folklore, etc?

Just a note regarding the Witness Trees. They are not located in the Sacred Grove, they are located in Vermont at the Joseph Smith birthplace. (This according the the source cited in this article). That same source asserts that "The Sacred Grove is one of the few tracts of pristine forestland in upstate New York that has remained undisturbed." Sources for that claim are not given. Based on the girth of the trees that I observed in the Sacred Grove when I visited, I suspect that none of the original trees is still there. I don't know if this calls into question the pristine nature of the Sacred Grove, but it is what happened that is significant, not the trees that grow there.

LValfre- The basic doctrines don't change. You could read the book CougarBlue suggested. It's really not that complex.

As far as Bramabull bringing up polygamy - it is not a new thing in God's dealings with his children through time to have the practice of polygamy come and go. This did not begin with the LDS church but rather in the Old Testament time. We still believe it's ok for one man to have more than one wife in the eternities as a man can be sealed to more than one wife if his first is deceased. Polygamy seems to be an eternal option, but not always a mortal life one (thankfully). I think God can have the perogative to call on his people to live it in this life when he sees fit or not. This is not a "doctrinal" problem unless you do not believe there is a God and that polygamy is a man-made institution that changes with the whims of church leaders - or Old Testament prophets.

jeanie:
[The basic doctrines don't change.]

And how do you define what the "basic doctrines" are? The ones that don't change?

So, the doctrines that don't change are the basic ones, and the basic doctrines are the ones that don't change, right? That is, until they do change, in which case they are, retroactively, not basic doctrines and are not subject to not changing?

Wonderful.

The idea of revealed religion seems to be very perplexing to some that are commenting here. I suggest that a quick reading of the articles of faith might, to a person that really seeks understanding and enlightenment, provide a great deal of insight. For the person that has already made up their mind, the parable of the sower and the stony ground comes to mind...

jeanie - You can't say that polygamy is doctrinal unless you are going directly against what president Hinckley said. Again, he said that he condemned it as a practice because he thinks it is "not doctrinal". Do you not see the contradiction there? I WAS doctrinal, and president Hinckley said it is not. So who is right? Joseph Smith or Gordon B. Hinckley? Both are considered prophets, no? It can't be both.

Re. the constant emotional hernias over the long-abandoned practice of polygamy: Anti-LDS who dismiss the Church and BoM because of polygamy, but who do not dismiss the Bible because of the practice, expose their prejudice and motives.

Re. typos in the BoM: This is a non-issue. God works through men and women. Men and women make mistakes. Sometimes people spell my name Micheal instead of the correct Michael. When it is misspelled, do I lose my reality? Am I exposed as a myth or fabrication because of someone's typo?

I think the future of the Church is secure so long as critics are shooting bb's at an elephant.