The Mormons gave up polygamy, but probably that was a compromise with the U.S. government.
Didn't one branch of the Anglicans start to allow gay priests?
Do other religions change doctrine?
by serenitynow! 45 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
blondie
The Mormons also changed their doctrine re the status of black men in their organization not being able to belong to the priesthood.
-
not a captive
I think the birth control thing and the RC Church is on topic.
I looked up the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" online version and at section 2368 it goes on about contraception. Highly theoretical but it is what I understood and you have mentioned: Basically any birth control that we use that doesn't "fail" at regular intervals leads us into an abuse of the conjugal act.
I have often wondered if the Church views sex after menopause for women as an abuse (Am I sinning if I am too old to get pregnant--and I'M GLAD I can't?
It was about 1964 or '65 that Vatican II was going on. By that time we had eight kids and Mom and Dad had to do something to stop kids from getting born--Mom had had a bad time with her last pregnancy and the doctors had warned them to stop having kids. That Natural Family Planning wasn't making the rounds then and Mom didn't have anything like a regular pattern for that stupid Rhythm Method. Abstinence was not a realistic solution. They anguished about it. But the babies stopped. And while we kids didn't get in on their discussions, we found out:
Trojans.
But they really suffered in their conscience. You might imagine how Dad was ticked off when one Sunday after the homily they passed a microphone in an open discussion on----- conscience and birth control!
I still remember Dad's very few words--"Father, what does the Pope say?" I can't recall the priest's mumbled answer. So Dad said "SO what is there to discuss?"
How could they do that? Make people believe it was a sin then flip it over for discussion? Why the torment? If ultimately we must take our conscience and do what is right before God--Why don't these religions stop laying down the LAW?
P.S. They adopted a little girl when Dad got sent to Korea. That was the deal they made with God.
Maeve
-
alfmel
Blondie,
I was reading a paper (can't find the link at the moment) from a Mormon fellow at Brigham Young University. He wrote about his quest to find the origin of the doctrine prohibiting blacks from receiving the priesthood. He couldn't find any official statement that was the case. It appeared to him it was an idea held by most protestants of the 19th century that penetrated the Mormon movement. He also mentioned the statement from the leaders of the church when the doctrine changed never singled out blacks or asians or hispanics, but simply said all worthy men could be given the priesthood.
Putting the ideas of that paper together with what I've read here on other posts, it seems there are two sides to doctrines: what a religion officially states as its creed, and what people believe (an therefore teach) as the doctrine. Yes, there is confusion in any religion I've seen as to what the leaders say should be done and what the people actually do. Heck, most of the epistles in the New Testament contain some kind of correction as to what the belief or a practice should be! In fact, there are several cases where changes ocurred or corrections in the doctrine were made.
Looking more into the Bible, the change from the Law of Moses to the law of Christ after his coming was a huge change in doctrine: no more burnt sacrifices, no more stoning of disobedient children (darn it!), etc.
Let me conclude with what several have said here: if you believe in guidance from God himself in the affairs of the Church, then change can happen. If you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible as the source of truth, then things shouldn't change.
-
not a captive
alfmel,
There is a lot of remedial PR/damage control on the history regarding Black Mormons. A good general look into the subject is under a Wikipedia entry "Black Mormons and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" , or something like that. Reliable info never comes from a Mormon. Mormons have more contradictions in their religion than the WTBTS. I know that's a large claim, but it is true.
Check out the translation of their Book of Abraham. It's a riot. J. Smith claimed to be translating a reformed Egyptian papyrus that was subsequently located in the Art Institute of Chicago. It was an ancient funerary rite for a priest of Horus. A huge fraud. The LDS has tried to gloss that since the early 1970's. Amazing that the LDS rank and file put their heads in the sand more than JWs.
-
dgp
An organization that doesn't change in response to changes in the environment will not survive. Other religions do make doctrinal changes, and sometimes they are severe. Some people leave those religions over those changes, too. Organization leaders understand that, and are happy to see the troublemakers go. It's not a matter of staying true to the teachings, but of maintaining the organization.
I understand there was a theologian who didn't or doesn't like the fact that religions tend to occupy what he called "the gaps". Whenever something can't be explained by science, then that "gap" is taken to be proof of the existence of God. When science manages to explain a particular gap, then religion has to retreat to another crevice. That's what has been happening for centuries. I think we all know full well that some centuries ago religious people thought that the sun revolved around the earth, not the Earth around the sun. I wonder if any religious person would even dare to say so in public today.
The Bible doesn't condemn slavery and holds menstruating women to be impure. The Bible hasn't changed lately. However, I wonder if any religious leader would dare to speak in favor of slavery or against menstruating women. It is depressing and it sort of pushes you in the direction of atheism (at least in my case) to know that they would resort to all kinds of argumentative devices to explain why that doesn't mean anymore what it used to mean.
-
garyneal
The Bible hasn't changed lately. However, I wonder if any religious leader would dare to speak in favor of slavery or against menstruating women.
I'm in an interracial marriage and this kind of thing hits a little close to home for me. Back when I was regularly attending church shortly after being baptized nearly 20 years ago, I recall some of the people there being somewhat startled when I revealed that I dated a black woman.
Now they said that the Bible does not say that the races should not mix but that the Bible does warn against intermarrying amongst people from other tribes, cultures, etc..
Of course, practically no church leader would say that publically now and instead interpret the passages to mean Christians intermarrying non-christians.
It is depressing and it sort of pushes you in the direction of atheism (at least in my case)
I know what you mean and in my case I sometimes think it pushes me more towards deism as I am the type who believes that God can be proven by simply 'taking a look around.' However, I know that this only proves a god and not one particular god. Still though, I find Christ's teachings along with the basic messages of the Bible agreeable which is why I haven't given up on Christianity.
-
not a captive
I am the type who believes that God can be proven by simply 'taking a look around.' However, I know that this only proves a god and not one particular god. Still though, I find Christ's teachings along with the basic messages of the Bible agreeable which is why I haven't given up on Christianity.
garyneal,
Your comment struck me. A few months back when I was leaving the WTS I accepted an invitation to go to a "non-denominational" Bible study group on John's Gospel. They said they were non-denom, but I kept hearing and reading their material push teachings that were none of their business to lay out as "law". I said to the study conductor that I had left one group that did that and didn't want any more.
I told her that it seemed more relevant for the focus to be on what Jesus mean by John 13:34,35--about love than about whether he was big-G-god or little-g-god.
So she told me that I should be interested in the teaching gospel of Matthew--HE taught practical Christianity but I needed to get used to the idea that John's gospel was meant to be doctrinal.
I asked if the word "doctrine" meant "teach", if all the gospels were to teach.
Yes, she said. But it was important to distinguish between what a Christian is supposed to DO as opposed to what a Christian should BELIEVE. Because proper doctrine means proper worship--practical teaching was another matter.
I read her 1 John 4:20: If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.
That scripture says so simply that "doctrine" of God takes you nowhere. Love is the miracle.
I, too, am open to finding out who God is through Jesus.
I really love what you said.
-
Terry
The real world requires a rational thought process to map out cause and effect for purposes of survival and advancement.
But, the lapse into wishful thinking shuts down the ability to detect contradiction.
Religion is "safe" when it doesn't impinge on the real world far enough to be testable.
But, when it makes immediate claims or definite testable statements---then, watch out! FALSIFIABILITY kicks in.
The Mormons and the World Wide Church of God impinged on the real world and were falsified. They had to survive by becoming rational!
Rational action is the only remedy to spiritual (i.e. mystical/contradictory) thinking that collides with reality.
The Jehovah's Witness world view is imaginary, irrational and contradictory--but, is relatively safe from testable collisions.
Except, they HAVE impinged on the real world with CERTAIN DATES. They are always falsified when reality meets faith in supernatural "truth".
To survive the embarassment, the Watchtower Society clamped down and demanded loyalty and obedience.
This is the last refuge of a despotic system of mind control unwilling to accept rational thought.
Remember, statements of belief are not testable.
Statements of fact are.
We are all entitled to our own opinion--but--not our own facts.
Facts exist in the real world. Facts are non-contradictory with reality.
-
BurnTheShips
When they did away with Lent a few decades ago that was huge.
That wouldn't actually be a change of doctrine, but practice. Lent, however, has never been done away with.
BTS