Is mormonism moving towards orthodoxy

[Jeries]

Is mormonism moving towards orthodoxy because:

Since 1830

1- the LDS church abandoned the doctrine of polygamy (at least in mortality) 

2-the LDS abandoned the policy of prohibiting those African heritage from holding the unique priesthood. 

3-the LDS church has altered its temple ceremony and removed offensive portions that portrayed Christian ministers as hireling of Satan. 

4-some LDS scholars and apologist seem to be questioning teachings that clearly place mormonism outside of Christian faith. 

(sorry if there is problem in english english is not my first language) 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Jeries
Just for knowledge.

[Vort]

I think it depends on what you mean by "Mormonism" and "orthodoxy". By "Mormonism", do you mean the body of the Saints of God? Or do you mean the institutional structure of the Church and the formal doctrines taught therein? I will assume the latter.

That leaves us with the question of "orthodoxy". What do you mean by that?

• In the sense of the Orthodox Catholic Church? No.
• In the general sense of orthodoxy? Depends on what you mean.
  • In the sense of the overall "orthodoxy" of larger Christianity, e.g. the belief in the Trinity and in the incorporeality of God? No.
  • Or do you mean in the sense of being "orthodox" to foundational LDS teachings? By definition, the Church is and has been "orthodox" to its own teachings. So it would be wrong to claim that "Mormonism", either the formal institution or the body of Saints, is moving toward what it has always held to.

Huh. I guess maybe it doesn't depend. The answer appears to be "no" in any case.

[Jeries]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

 

 

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think it depends on what you mean by "Mormonism" and "orthodoxy". By "Mormonism", do you mean the body of the Saints of God? Or do you mean the institutional structure of the Church and the formal doctrines taught therein? I will assume the latter.

That leaves us with the question of "orthodoxy". What do you mean by that?

• In the sense of the Orthodox Catholic Church? No.
• In the general sense of orthodoxy? Depends on what you mean.
  • In the sense of the overall "orthodoxy" of larger Christianity, e.g. the belief in the Trinity and in the incorporeality of God? No.
  • Or do you mean in the sense of being "orthodox" to foundational LDS teachings? By definition, the Church is and has been "orthodox" to its own teachings. So it would be wrong to claim that "Mormonism", either the formal institution or the body of Saints, is moving toward what it has always held to.

Huh. I guess maybe it doesn't depend. The answer appears to be "no" in any case.

Whats written above. 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Jeries

[NeuroTypical]

To be honest, we really don't spend much time thinking about matters of Catholic orthodoxy.  We believe our church is led by Christ, through His prophets.  We believe in current, ongoing revelation.  So we occationally change this or that, have a revelation about this or that, emphasize something more and something else less.  When these things happen, I really doubt any of us think much about whether that brings us closer to the Catholic way of being Christian, or not.  

I mean, I like Catholics.  I know you guys see the Christian world through a motherly lens of "We raised you, and now you are off wandering strange paths, but as you mature you will come back to us, because we're Christ's church."  I know you think in such terms of "this wayward child recently changed and is moving closer" and "that wayward child is still believing wrong things so I'll pray for them".  But we don't.  

If you want to see any changes my church makes in terms of orthodox or heresy, go for it.  Happy to have you here.  Perhaps you might someday add to our number of former Catholics who were directed by God to come over to the restored Gospel.

Edited October 6, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy]

54 minutes ago, Jeries said:

Is mormonism moving towards orthodoxy because:

Since 1830

1- the LDS church abandoned the doctrine of polygamy (at least in mortality) 

2-the LDS abandoned the policy of prohibiting those African heritage from holding the unique priesthood. 

3-the LDS church has altered its temple ceremony and removed offensive portions that portrayed Christian ministers as hireling of Satan. 

4-some LDS scholars and apologist seem to be questioning teachings that clearly place mormonism outside of Christian faith. 

(sorry if there is problem in english english is not my first language) 

I don’t think you can extrapolate from the above, a calculated policy of trying to make Mormonism look more like other Christian sects:

1)  From the get-go Mormonism held that monogamy was the rule and polygamy was the exception.  As you say, the underlying theology of plural marriage is very much intact in the church and in our scripture. 

2)  From the inception of the priesthood ban, it was known that it would someday end (though various authorities did not always agree about when, why, or under what circumstances that might happen).  The change in policy was viewed as a fulfillment of prophecy, not a reversal.  

3)  Without going into too much detail here:  the nuance you miss about the old portrayal is that it ultimately became clear that the minister was *deceived*, not *knowingly colluding*; and that he readily cast aside old deceptions in favor of new truth once it was revealed. As for the reason for the liturgical change—the focus on exclusively Christian theological errors simply became less relevant as Mormonism made preliminary inroads (and anticipated making many more) into societies that were not historically Christian.  But as far as theological differences go, we still consider ourselves to be right and many of the “orthodox” teachings to be in error.  

4)  It’s hard to engage you meaningfully in this without knowing which scholars, apologists, and teachings you are talking about.  As a general response, though, I will make two observations:

First, Mormon apologetics of late has, rightly or wrongly, been trying to broaden Mormonism’s appeal by drawing a distinction between (and this is my own terminology here) core doctrines that good Mormons are bound to accept, versus ancillary teachings that may be deeply embedded in Mormon discourse and culture but that a Mormon may individually choose to reject without adversely affecting his or her spiritual journey.  In that sense, you’re probably right that some unique LDS teachings (some of the aspects of theosis, for example) have been shunted into the “ancillary teachings” category.  That said, I think they’re too deeply embedded in Mormonism to go away unless the Church leadership makes a much more aggressive effort to stamp them out than it has hitherto done; and I don’t think that’s going to happen.

And second, many of the so-called “unchristian” teachings in early Mormonism were actually *very* much within the Christian mainstream of their day (e.g. “curse of Cain”).  To the degree that Mormonism sometimes gets itself into theological trouble, I find that it’s often because we pay too much attention to what other Christians think we should be believing and teaching and doing.

[NeuroTypical]

Also, have a pic of President Eyring and Pope Francis.  From the Vatican Summit on Marriage back in 2014.  We do have a lot of common ground.

 

Edited October 6, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[zil]

38 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Also, have a pic of President Eyring and Pope Francis.  From the Vatican Summit on Marriage back in 2014.  We do have a lot of common ground.

 

So what you're saying is that President Eyring was moving toward orthodoxy (at least up until the photo was taken).

Edited October 6, 2018 by zil

[Jane_Doe]

 

1 hour ago, Jeries said:

Is mormonism moving towards orthodoxy because:

Since 1830

1- the LDS church abandoned the doctrine of polygamy (at least in mortality) 

2-the LDS abandoned the policy of prohibiting those African heritage from holding the unique priesthood. 

3-the LDS church has altered its temple ceremony and removed offensive portions that portrayed Christian ministers as hireling of Satan. 

4-some LDS scholars and apologist seem to be questioning teachings that clearly place mormonism outside of Christian faith. 

(sorry if there is problem in english english is not my first language) 

This is actually a complex question, dependent on definitions and there's a lot of important theological and historical points that need to be included in order to adequately discuss this.  I'll start by hitting your 4 points, and then circle back around to the main question--

1) That's always been the default.  For a small time there was an exception for a minority of the population, just like in OT times.  

2) The historical background of this is essential.  1800's mainstream Christianity in the USA wasn't exactly egalitarian in it's treatment of different ethnicities.

3) @Just_A_Guy addressed this very well.  To add to that, I actually find LDS (now and always historically) to be much more charitable in it's treatment other Christian denominations than many other groups.  For example, RCC doesn't even acknowledge LDS as being Christian.

4) It would help if pointed to which teachings you were talking about here.  Often times when non-LDS people are discussing this, they're talking about ideas which by LDS were always considered in speculation in the first place.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Jeries said:

Since 1830

1- the LDS church abandoned the doctrine of polygamy (at least in mortality)

This is false. The practice, not the doctrine, was abandoned. To be more correct, the practice was rescinded by revelation.

2 hours ago, Jeries said:

2-the LDS abandoned the policy of prohibiting those African heritage from holding the unique priesthood. 

To be more correct, the practice was rescinded by revelation.

2 hours ago, Jeries said:

3-the LDS church has altered its temple ceremony and removed offensive portions that portrayed Christian ministers as hireling of Satan. 

Those portions were not offensive. Not in the least. So you don't know what you're talking about.

2 hours ago, Jeries said:

4-some LDS scholars and apologist seem to be questioning teachings that clearly place mormonism outside of Christian faith. 

There are always heretics and apostates. These don't matter.

 

2 hours ago, Jeries said:

Is mormonism moving towards orthodoxy?

Nope.

[Jeries]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

To be honest, we really don't spend much time thinking about matters of Catholic orthodoxy.  We believe our church is led by Christ, through His prophets.  We believe in current, ongoing revelation.  So we occationally change this or that, have a revelation about this or that, emphasize something more and something else less.  When these things happen, I really doubt any of us think much about whether that brings us closer to the Catholic way of being Christian, or not.  

I mean, I like Catholics.  I know you guys see the Christian world through a motherly lens of "We raised you, and now you are off wandering strange paths, but as you mature you will come back to us, because we're Christ's church."  I know you think in such terms of "this wayward child recently changed and is moving closer" and "that wayward child is still believing wrong things so I'll pray for them".  But we don't.  

If you want to see any changes my church makes in terms of orthodox or heresy, go for it.  Happy to have you here.  Perhaps you might someday add to our number of former Catholics who were directed by God to come over to the restored Gospel.

Actually I don't believe you're doctrine to be a heresy. Actually I believe in Joseph Smith. But I am speaking about what is the path that LDS church is going through. 

[Jeries]

20 minutes ago, zil said:

So what you're saying is that President Eyring was moving toward orthodoxy (at least up until the photo was taken).

No I am speaking about the path of the church if it continues in the way. 

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Jeries said:

26 minutes ago, zil said:

So what you're saying is that President Eyring was moving toward orthodoxy (at least up until the photo was taken).

No I am speaking about the path of the church if it continues in the way. 

@zil was making a joke. When President Eyring was walking toward the Pope, he was "moving toward orthodoxy".

(Except that I don't think Orthodoxy recognizes the Pope as the leader of the whole Church and Christ's sole emissary. Sorry, zil.)

[Jeries]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is false. The practice, not the doctrine, was abandoned. To be more correct, the practice was rescinded by revelation.

To be more correct, the practice was rescinded by revelation.

Those portions were not offensive. Not in the least. So you don't know what you're talking about.

There are always heretics and apostates. These don't matter.

 

Nope.

I don't think revelation can be changed at least if it's from God and I am not sure about the offensive portions about the priests but I heard it even though I don't care about the priests. 

 

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Jeries said:

I don't think revelation can be changed at least if it's from God 

Cool!  You don't meet many Catholics who believe in Joseph Smith that sacrifice lambs before their congregation.

Quote

If he offer a lamb for his offering, then shall he offer it before the Lord. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron’s sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof round about upon the altar. And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire unto the Lord; the fat thereof, and the whole rump, it shall he take off hard by the backbone; and the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away.

 

[Jeries]

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Cool!  You don't meet many Catholics who believe in Joseph Smith that sacrifice lambs before their congregation.

 

The problem I am not speaking about catholicism I am speaking about orthodox Christianity and there is a huge difference. 

[NeuroTypical]

You mean the Eastern Orthodox Church?  The Orthodox Catholic Church, 2nd-largest Christian church, 250 million members - that orthodox Christianity?

One thing I've always found true, when you come across a Catholic who says "no, that's not what I mean by orthodox", you're in for a wild ride of new definitions of words with which you're not familiar.

So I am really curious - do you do burnt offerings or not?

[Jeries]

20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

You mean the Eastern Orthodox Church?  The Orthodox Catholic Church, 2nd-largest Christian church, 250 million members - that orthodox Christianity?

One thing I've always found true, when you come across a Catholic who says "no, that's not what I mean by orthodox", you're in for a wild ride of new definitions of words with which you're not familiar.

So I am really curious - do you do burnt offerings or not?

Yes I am speaking about the eastern orthodox faith and no we don't burn offerings we eat from the sacrament which is made of bread and wine the difference LDS church use bread and water. https://youtu.be/jxdbE7033Ho open this link it tells you everything about our faith because most people don't know it. 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Jeries

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, Jeries said:

Yes I am speaking about the eastern orthodox faith

Oh, there's a mix up with English here.

"Orthodox" with a big O is a name for a church, such as Eastern Orthodox or Oreintal Orthodox. 

"orthodox" with a small o is means matching what is traditionally accepted as true.  Which of course varies on which tradition you were looking at, hence why we were asking for further elaboration.  Big O Orthodox carries a very different meaning.  

I have actually studied Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox traditions.  There are some similarities to LDS, and some differences.

[NeuroTypical]

5 hours ago, Jeries said:

I don't think revelation can be changed

 

3 hours ago, Jeries said:

no we don't burn offerings

 

So, if revelation is never changed, how come you're not following the revelations in Leviticus (among other OT books)?  I mean, if you believe in Joseph Smith and think our teachings are not heresies, then you know we're big on being adopted into the Abrahamic covenant.  So how do you reconcile this stuff?

[Guest MormonGator]

There is no way Mormonism is moving towards Orthodoxy or any other form of Christianity. Too many theological differences separate the faiths. 

Edited October 7, 2018 by MormonGator

[Jane_Doe]

8 hours ago, Jeries said:

I don't think revelation can be changed at least if it's from God and I am not sure about the offensive portions about the priests but I heard it even though I don't care about the priests. 

 

You believe the Bible is the word of God, correct?   Therein, read about the practice of eating pork.  

[Jeries]

8 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Oh, there's a mix up with English here.

"Orthodox" with a big O is a name for a church, such as Eastern Orthodox or Oreintal Orthodox. 

"orthodox" with a small o is means matching what is traditionally accepted as true.  Which of course varies on which tradition you were looking at, hence why we were asking for further elaboration.  Big O Orthodox carries a very different meaning.  

I have actually studied Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox traditions.  There are some similarities to LDS, and some differences.

OK sorry for that. 

[Jane_Doe]

13 hours ago, Jeries said:

OK sorry for that. 

No worries!  After all, I don't speak a word of Greek, so I have no room to insult you for imperfect English.  I was just trying to be helpful, and it does clarify your question a lot.

No, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't going to become Greek Orthodox, ever.

[Guest]

On 10/6/2018 at 11:01 AM, Jeries said:

Actually I believe in Joseph Smith.

I have no idea what yo mean here.  What does it mean to "believe in Joseph Smith"?  I don't think any member of the Church would ever say that.  So, what do you mean by that?

[Anddenex]

On 10/6/2018 at 10:10 AM, Jeries said:

I don't think revelation can be changed at least if it's from God and I am not sure about the offensive portions about the priests but I heard it even though I don't care about the priests. 

 

How do you interpret the change to the Law of Moses, and then from the Law of Moses and the New Testament which ended the practice of many things in the Law of Moses?