Brigham Young on the Attributes of Deity

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

I realize it's very vogue to be anti-correlation in the intellectual world, but you're really missing the forest. It took years--in some cases, decades--to come to an understanding on topics that today we take for granted as settled doctrine.

For example: perfectly normal, active LDS members were being re-baptized as a renewal of their covenants up through the late 19th century, until the doctrine of the sacrament and its relationship to baptism was better understood. The much-maligned Word of Wisdom has evolved mightily over the decades as well.

There are still areas where debate is had, but it's not as broad or as deep because some questions have 180 years of experience and revelation behind them, not due to the disregarding of some imagined-sacrosanct principle of disagreement.

Your example is not representative, and anytime you are reduced to making claims of "we" I can't help but wonder who you are referring to. The "we" certainly is not your typical member today, as s/he doesn't have a clue about rebaptisms for health, the 1857 reformation when Brigham Young had the entire Church rebaptized, and so on. Taking something for granted is exactly the problem, and is certainly not evidence of "progress" when things are not so much settled as unknown or forgotten. In many cases it isn't about settled doctrine (and I'm still not sure what you mean by that, as most things Mormons do not have to agree on at all. It sounds like the sort of thing you'd hang Al Gore for)--it's about ignorance and a disinclination to learn. Moreover, you are missing the larger point--which is that fundamentalists think they have a mandate to expand the list of what a Mormon must believe or do. If the new approach is to force conformity under the euphemism of "settled doctrine," I'm not buying in.

The Word of Wisdom has not evolved so much as it has simply changed.

The fact is that in Sunday School classes across the land, teachers struggle to formulate questions worth asking and class members reel off thoughtless answers. Stupification is a better description than "evolution."

Take a look at the Church manuals from 70 years ago. They are vastly more accurate, thoughtful, and interesting than the "evolved" bilge that is served up today. Deep, broad debate continues to go on, it just happens at the risk of fundamentalists trying to exclude people from callings, or of people being otherwise marginalized.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Take a look at the Church manuals from 70 years ago. They are vastly more accurate, thoughtful, and interesting than the "evolved" bilge that is served up today. Deep, broad debate continues to go on, it just happens at the risk of fundamentalists trying to exclude people from callings, or of people being otherwise marginalized.

Just to reinforce your point, on my mission (98-2000) the old BoM student manual was a hot commodity. It wasn't great, but what was then the new standard-issue manual was absolute garbage. I got my hands on an older one from a member and was widely envied because of it. I hadn't considered the extent to which this type of thing was a trend, but it makes sense that the older the book, the less white-washed it is. The current church history student manual is an absolute joke.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I realize it's very vogue to be anti-correlation in the intellectual world, but you're really missing the forest. It took years--in some cases, decades--to come to an understanding on topics that today we take for granted as settled doctrine.

For example: perfectly normal, active LDS members were being re-baptized as a renewal of their covenants up through the late 19th century, until the doctrine of the sacrament and its relationship to baptism was better understood. The much-maligned Word of Wisdom has evolved mightily over the decades as well.

There are still areas where debate is had, but it's not as broad or as deep because some questions have 180 years of experience and revelation behind them, not due to the disregarding of some imagined-sacrosanct principle of disagreement.

This is an interesting argument, Tex. You seem to indicate that change and evolution are good, but imply that we have somehow "arrived" and little further change is warranted. On what basis do you arrive at that conclusion? Simply because the rate of change has slowed down?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

This is an interesting argument, Tex. You seem to indicate that change and evolution are good, but imply that we have somehow "arrived" and little further change is warranted. On what basis do you arrive at that conclusion? Simply because the rate of change has slowed down?

Eine Bibel, eine Bibel, wir haben schon eine Bibel.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

I have had 2 instances this year where my disagreement was pushed aside and I was told "the stake president has decided and that is how we are doing it".

On doctrine or on policy?