CommanderSouth

Is it just me?

Recommended Posts

I know this isn't the most elegant way to approach things, but honestly so often I feel like doctrinally/historically we have retconned so many things and I struggle to find the historical precedent.  Perhaps I am not looking in the right places, but normal lamentations of the Book of Abraham aside, I think alot about the temple ordinances, especially for eternal marriage, and why we don't see it anywhere overtly in the bible. Even Paul (I believe it was) said it was better NOT to marry at one point.  Perhaps I lack in study, but sometimes things like this give me pause and make me struggle with how much I can trust the history and archeology I see when compared with the Book of Mormon, doctrinal changes in the bible.  I don't I feel like I'm rambling by now (thanks for staying with me), just feels weird sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

I know this isn't the most elegant way to approach things, but honestly so often I feel like doctrinally/historically we have retconned so many things and I struggle to find the historical precedent.  Perhaps I am not looking in the right places, but normal lamentations of the Book of Abraham aside, I think alot about the temple ordinances, especially for eternal marriage, and why we don't see it anywhere overtly in the bible. Even Paul (I believe it was) said it was better NOT to marry at one point.  Perhaps I lack in study, but sometimes things like this give me pause and make me struggle with how much I can trust the history and archeology I see when compared with the Book of Mormon, doctrinal changes in the bible.  I don't I feel like I'm rambling by now (thanks for staying with me), just feels weird sometimes.

These articles may provide a good starting point for your research:: A Case For Ancient Temple Ordinances. and Ancient Temples and Their Functions. and Eternal Marriage and Family in the Old Testament.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

I know this isn't the most elegant way to approach things, but honestly so often I feel like doctrinally/historically we have retconned so many things and I struggle to find the historical precedent.  Perhaps I am not looking in the right places, but normal lamentations of the Book of Abraham aside, I think alot about the temple ordinances, especially for eternal marriage, and why we don't see it anywhere overtly in the bible. Even Paul (I believe it was) said it was better NOT to marry at one point.  Perhaps I lack in study, but sometimes things like this give me pause and make me struggle with how much I can trust the history and archeology I see when compared with the Book of Mormon, doctrinal changes in the bible.  I don't I feel like I'm rambling by now (thanks for staying with me), just feels weird sometimes.

Much of the temple ordinances depend on interpretation and other such items.  We KNOW that they had tabernacles and temples in the Bible, and some of the areas are not really explained in full of their usage in the Bible.  This could be due to them having similar things to us in that some items were sacred.  We know that they had sacrifice and the rules of sacrifice which composed the usage of some of the temple, but with the size of the temple and the area it composed, questions are still out there which archaeologist and historians attempt to answer.

With eternal marriage, once again, it also falls upon what one has as their interpretation.  From an LDS perspective, there is a LOT of evidence of celestial marriage.  Some of this falls into the retroactively changing of terms, ideas, and historical thought that has pervaded the LDS church in recent times.  When I was younger there was the idea that marriage, as spoken of in the Bible, when referred specifically as a marriage, was typically discussing that which was given of the Lord...aka...celestial marriage.  On the otherhand, concubines and others of such status were a lower state, or those that were not sealed together.  Thus, it was more than just a status item, it was literally a defining item between those who were joined in the covenant vs. those who had a temporal marriage.  This is why those children born to the handmaids of Leah and Rachel were literally, under the covenant, the children of Rachel and Leah as well in some thought processes that were given at the time.

I work with history.  I am not a Church historian.  I also see exactly what you are talking about in the church attempting to retcon some items which they had taught and accepted for over a hundred years previously.  I am also disturbed at it.  Much of the reason I am disturbed is that their historical sources are suspect in their new history that they seem to be writing and accepting.  The same could be said of their old sources, but at least they HAD at least ONE acceptable source.  Now, for some of the items that are being written (and it is typical as some of the sources are the SAME sources as that which the anti-Mormons utilized and those sources have almost ALWAYS been rather bad from a historian viewpoint...as in, unreliable and more based on rumor, speculation, and third party recounting rather than primary and first party...even those which SOUND as if they are a primary source tend to turn up to be worse than a secondary source when research is done) presently for LDS history in the church, the way it is being done is very disturbing.

I can say that most of the Anti-Mormon literature out there is not historically sound.  Most of those that I see expounding stuff on the internet typically are the same that would accept anything someone else told them and take it as a "fact" rather than trying to find the source material and track it down that way, or lack the training (and this covers 99% of them) to even understand how to track down to see if it's a valid primary source and if it even makes sense historically (a prime example are some of the trial records that some try to point condemn Joseph Smith, when in the context of what would have been recorded at those times in history makes absolutely no sense...which would lead a normal historian to want to investigate why such an abnormality exists and do tests to see if there are any documents, if they are actually valid, or if someone forged them).

So, it is even more puzzling that the church has accepted some of this stuff in recent years as acceptable. 

I do NOT have an answer for this or that will please you or anyone else who actually KNOWS how history works and the backgrounds of Church history.

The only thing I can say is that the Church is a vessel composed of and made for men.  The GOSPEL is the thing the church conveys to us.  It is the thing that the vessel carries of importance.  It is led by Men (I know, we say the Lord is the head of the Church, and he is, but 99.9% of the time he is not here talking to the prophet directly, showing himself to the members, and others in a direct leadership role.  Most of the time it is his servants that are in charge with him revealing a little bit occasionally.  So, yes, he is in charge ultimately, but realistically the General Authorities of the Church are the ones leading the church during the 99.999% of the time the are not actively receiving revelation directly from the Lord). 

Because it is led by men, there are opinions and things they do that are strictly from their own ideas, thoughts, and beliefs.  This happens on a local level and continues up the chain.  If we develop a testimony simply of men and this vessel, we will be more troubled than if we develop a testimony of the Gospel.  The Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It is where the ordinances and saving covenants are taught and given.  It is where the principles of salvation are found.  The Church is what carries this gospel, but it is the GOSPEL that is essential.  The Church has come and gone throughout history.  It is a temporal vessel which is sometimes on the earth and sometimes not on the earth.  On the otherhand, the Gospel is eternal.  We need to be able to distinguish between the eternal gospel and the artifacts which compose the mortal items of MEN and POLICIES on the earth.

I will say that I have ALWAYS held the opinion that you cannot prove that the Book of Mormon is true from physical evidence (and the same holds true for the Bible).  In fact, much of the evidence out there would point out that there IS NO EVIDENCE.  Even worse, for the Bible and Book of Mormon, the evidence could be utilized to actually prove that they could not possibly have occurred and that they are not true.  If we rely on science and physical evidence as we see them on earth today, we are going to have a hard time accepting that the Book of Mormon or the Bible are true. 

In this light, those who believe in the Bible, when facing this evidence can either turn to faith, or simply abandon their beliefs.  As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we have been blessed with an ability beyond that of the general Christian.  We can KNOW the truth of the Book of Mormon (and the Bible and other scripture) by the Power of the Holy Ghost.  In these dark times where MEN are being swayed and pushed to and fro by the winds of social pressure, temptations of all sorts, and the personal biases we are all suspect to, only the HOLY SPIRIT will be able to guide us to comfort and knowledge in the truthfulness and sanctity of the doctrines found in the Book of Mormon and the rest of the Scriptures.  If one reads the Book of Mormon daily, says their prayers in earnest and are true to the covenants and principles, they can receive the calming peace found from the Holy Ghost and not be as troubled in these times where men go hither to and fro by any switch in the tide.

Thus, the best answer I have for you is not one that many enjoy or want to hear.  It is not an answer that is given by the "facts" of men (either in the church or out of the church), nor is it a message where all physical evidence that we mortal men use points to Joseph and the rest of the Church leaders being perfection in carnate.  If you base your testimony on the "facts" and evidences given by the world, you will soon find yourself having a great deal of difficulty accepting anything in the gospel.  However, if you pray and ask daily for the guiding spirit of the Holy Ghost, faithfully read the Book of Mormon, and continuously search and ponder the scriptures you can find that you have the reassurances of heaven through the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Thus, this is my answer.  The ONLY peace you might be able to find in all of this is the same that has always been promised.  It is that of the Holy Ghost.  It is why many of us joined the Church and continue to stick with the church.  Even if things seem contrary to us between what the world says and what the church says, the Holy Ghost can confirm that the Gospel is true.  That the Book of Mormon is true, and that the ordinances we make are holy and sacred.  If we base our testimonies on the things of men today, we will only founder and lose hope and faith in all that we have been taught and learned.  Only by the power of the Lord and our own ability to listen to the Spirit can we daily reassure ourselves of the truthfulness of the gospel and the saving principles thereof.

Metaphorically...

Right now we are going through a literal Hurricane of popular pressure and temporal temptation in this world.  The Storms are raging around us.  The ship is the Church, the mast is the prophet.  The Rudder is the Scriptures and the Lord, and the rope tying us to the deck is the Holy Ghost.  If we do not make sure our ropes are secure and that we are paying heed to the rudder we will either be swept overboard or our ship will go wandering into the very depths of confusion.  For this day and the future (even more than now) I'd say that we need to ensure that we have the Holy Ghost leading us and that we are paying heed to the scriptures or it will be very easy to fall off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to look up what retconned meant.

Quote
(shortened form of RETroactive CONtinuity; first made popular in the comic book world)

1. (original meaning) Adding information to the back story of a fictional character or world, without invalidating that which had gone before.

2. (more common usage) Adding or altering information regarding the back story of a fictional character or world, regardless of whether the change contradicts what was said before.
 

Then I reread the posts. From the definitions (went to three different sources and got the same information) it seems both of you are looking/reading the scriptures, history of the church, perhaps even the written testimonies of church leaders as if they are fiction. They simply are NOT.

51 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we have been blessed with an ability beyond that of the general Christian.  We can KNOW the truth of the Book of Mormon (and the Bible and other scripture) by the Power of the Holy Ghost.  In these dark times where MEN are being swayed and pushed to and fro by the winds of social pressure, temptations of all sorts, and the personal biases we are all suspect to, only the HOLY SPIRIT will be able to guide us to comfort and knowledge in the truthfulness and sanctity of the doctrines found in the Book of Mormon and the rest of the Scriptures.  If one reads the Book of Mormon daily, says their prayers in earnest and are true to the covenants and principles, they can receive the calming peace found from the Holy Ghost and not be as troubled in these times where men go hither to and fro by any switch in the tide. 

My testimony is based on what the Holy Ghost has validated regarding the Book of Mormon, The Bible, the words of Father's living prophets today. NOT on the fictional recounts of anti-Mormons, disillusioned LDS members, etc. Nor is it on man alone.

56 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The ONLY peace you might be able to find in all of this is the same that has always been promised.  It is that of the Holy Ghost.  It is why many of us joined the Church and continue to stick with the church.  Even if things seem contrary to us between what the world says and what the church says, the Holy Ghost can confirm that the Gospel is true.  That the Book of Mormon is true, and that the ordinances we make are holy and sacred.  If we base our testimonies on the things of men today, we will only founder and lose hope and faith in all that we have been taught and learned.  Only by the power of the Lord and our own ability to listen to the Spirit can we daily reassure ourselves of the truthfulness of the gospel and the saving principles thereof.

@JohnsonJones you said it so beautifully, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

I know this isn't the most elegant way to approach things, but honestly so often I feel like doctrinally/historically we have retconned so many things and I struggle to find the historical precedent.  Perhaps I am not looking in the right places, but normal lamentations of the Book of Abraham aside, I think alot about the temple ordinances, especially for eternal marriage, and why we don't see it anywhere overtly in the bible. Even Paul (I believe it was) said it was better NOT to marry at one point.  Perhaps I lack in study, but sometimes things like this give me pause and make me struggle with how much I can trust the history and archeology I see when compared with the Book of Mormon, doctrinal changes in the bible.  I don't I feel like I'm rambling by now (thanks for staying with me), just feels weird sometimes.

It isn't just you.  

There were two things that helped me come to terms with and learn to live with the many (many, many) doubts I have about the Church, its doctrines, teachings, and with religion in general. 

First, I accepted that I can't just read scripture and apply it to my own life without first understanding the context surrounding the scriptural authors. To apply scripture to myself on a purely textual basis, without context, is bound to lead to screwy results. Thus, I am not a scriptural literalist.

Second, I chose that if I was going to maintain faith in anything, I was going to have to accept that what we have as scripture is (usually) the authors' best attempt to understand their standing and relationship with God.  Despite their best attempts, the authors inevitably have biases and agendas that shape the way they wrote about events.  I don't believe that negates their efforts; it just requires that I read scripture with the understanding that it is flawed. To deal with this, it is my responsibility to study out the scriptural record and its context to the best of my ability; ponder its possible applications with the guidance of the Spirit; and do my best to identify when my own biases and agendas may be influencing or inhibiting my interpretations.

Like you, I feel like a lot of what we believe we have tried to retrofit into the scriptures.  Eternal marriage is a good example of that, where we don't see any real evidence of it in the historical records.  I mostly blame Joseph Smith for this (and also Joseph Fielding Smith), who were both convinced that everything the Church did in modern times had a direct correlate to worship in ancient times.  I've come to disagree with that belief, and don't think it is necessary.  Religion and the practice of religion has morphed over time, and has adapted with societal developments, changes in norms, and the specific needs of adherents in their own times. I have no doubt that the same principles applied, but how they were taught certainly has. (For example, I don't believe for a second that the things we learn in the temple were taught to the ancients using the same ritual--and if the endowment were to be revealed today instead of in the 1830's, I don't think it would look anything like what we know it as now)

I don't have a problem with the practice of religion changing over time.  And I don't feel a need to retrofit everything we believe into past scripture. Doing so is neither practical nor realistic. If you don't feel like it works for you, then stop doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

I know this isn't the most elegant way to approach things, but honestly so often I feel like doctrinally/historically we have retconned so many things and I struggle to find the historical precedent.  Perhaps I am not looking in the right places, but normal lamentations of the Book of Abraham aside, I think alot about the temple ordinances, especially for eternal marriage, and why we don't see it anywhere overtly in the bible. Even Paul (I believe it was) said it was better NOT to marry at one point.  Perhaps I lack in study, but sometimes things like this give me pause and make me struggle with how much I can trust the history and archeology I see when compared with the Book of Mormon, doctrinal changes in the bible.  I don't I feel like I'm rambling by now (thanks for staying with me), just feels weird sometimes.

Adam and Eve were married in the Garden of Eden before the Fall (Genesis 2;18-25; 3:8).

RE: Retconning, the Restoration does that by design.

RE: Trusting secular evidence and/or spiritual evidence, trust you spirit because that is how you filter and choose between both types of evidence.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

It isn't just you.  

There were two things that helped me come to terms with and learn to live with the many (many, many) doubts I have about the Church, its doctrines, teachings, and with religion in general. ...

 

I don't have a problem with the practice of religion changing over time.  And I don't feel a need to retrofit everything we believe into past scripture. Doing so is neither practical nor realistic. If you don't feel like it works for you, then stop doing it.

But the repurcussions of that 👆 are so dire. It's not that easy to just quit what you've grown up doing and believing, especially when people like Elder Ballard continually remind us to stay in the boat. Oh the guilt! It's fairly easy for me to not go to the temple right now because since our local temple is closed for renovation it's currently it's a 3-4 hour drive and an all day event to go. And life is chaotic with non-driving teenagers schedule.s So I'm in the middle of a two year or so  time period of infrequent temple attendance  for me to reevaluate what I believe and try to get my head around temple participation again- And what it all means-( truthfully my biggest struggle with church teachings right now). But every time someone in my ward talks about their frequent treks up to the temple, it's like a gut punch! And I hear a voice in my head telling me I'm not righteous enough or willing enough to sacrifice my time to go.  I don't know what to do about that.

How do you just "stop doing it"??

For what it's worth, my son did. He now lives in a city with a fairly new temple and could go all the time. Except that he stepped out of the boat with no intention of getting back in anytime soon. BUT he is living in a city alone with no family members nearby to be "bugged by"  ( for lack of a better description). He's free so live as he wants without any remorse ( or so he says).  I honestly don't know how one does that, especially when it's a multi-generational tradition, Pioneer ancestry and all that. 

Edited by carlimac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to hit something specific, you mentioned Paul saying it's better not to marry.

Context, context, context. Yes he did say that. But he was answering a specific question, and we don't know what that question was. It's important.

I can think of a contemporary example that illustrates this. Elder M. Russel Ballard said at a meeting I was at in regards to church history that "research isn't the answer"

Wow! I saw on the internet people take issue with his statement and on the surface it does look bad. But context! This meeting was specifically for young married couples, it was about how to keep your marriage strong. The question was about how to handle a spouse that was falling away due to issues with church History. In that context I agree out researching your spouse probably isn't the best way to keep your marriage strong.

Likewise with Paul, we don't know what the question was, or the circumstances surrounding the question were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jerome1232 said:

Just to hit something specific, you mentioned Paul saying it's better not to marry.

Context, context, context. Yes he did say that. But he was answering a specific question, and we don't know what that question was. It's important.

[...]

Likewise with Paul, we don't know what the question was, or the circumstances surrounding the question were.

For example:

"I'm a 34-year-old man in the prime of my life. I have been called by the Holy Spirit and by God's anointed to serve as a traveling missionary, which I am engaged in trying to do. But I find myself drawn to the women I teach and serve, especially the unmarried Christian women. Without intending to, I catch myself idly thinking about being with them in intimate situations, not merely lustfully, but in the context of marriage and family. Brother Paul, I know that this season of my life is to be dedicated to the service of the Master as a missionary, just as you and Timothy are doing. But my mind keeps straying to marriage and family and intimate matters between husband and wife. I'm distracted all the time. I don't know what to do. As a widower, you are a man experienced in marital matters. What is your counsel?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Iggy said:

I had to look up what retconned meant.

Then I reread the posts. From the definitions (went to three different sources and got the same information) it seems both of you are looking/reading the scriptures, history of the church, perhaps even the written testimonies of church leaders as if they are fiction. They simply are NOT.

My testimony is based on what the Holy Ghost has validated regarding the Book of Mormon, The Bible, the words of Father's living prophets today. NOT on the fictional recounts of anti-Mormons, disillusioned LDS members, etc. Nor is it on man alone.

@JohnsonJones you said it so beautifully, thank you.

I apologize if I should have found a better word, but I was applying it to the situation to explain the idea that from the perspective of pretestant christendom, X Y and Z happened, but moving from protestantism to a latter day saint understanding was tha maybe A B C Y and Z happened, but not X.  It is the feeling of everything you thought you knew is being changed.  And there isn't always historical backing to it.  I'm not trying to say all of these things are fiction, just that from an outside perspective it can feel as if history is being rewritten.  I understand "plain and precious" has to mean something, but that was the feeling I was trying to articulate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, CV75 said:

Adam and Eve were married in the Garden of Eden before the Fall (Genesis 2;18-25; 3:8).

RE: Retconning, the Restoration does that by design.

RE: Trusting secular evidence and/or spiritual evidence, trust you spirit because that is how you filter and choose between both types of evidence.

And in fairness, if it all there to begin with, then there would be no need for a restoration.  And further down that road, if the Catholic church really had fallen off the log, then something would have to be afoot, and it does seem understandable that a reformation probably wasn't enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CommanderSouth Since we are studying the New Testament this calendar year I have been using the complete Joseph Smith Translation alongside the KJV. NOT just the footnotes, but the Complete book. What a difference it makes. Talk about plain and precious truths being lost - omitted from the KJV. As for the church history being re-written, I don't see it that way. I see it as Father, through his living prophets has been giving us morsels that even the weakest of us can understand. Here a little, there a little. Line upon line. Precept upon precept. Milk before pabulum, pabulum before meat.

Going back to our New Testament study. Reading Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They have written about the same incidents - repeating the same instructions from Jesus Christ, yet each man has omitted one or more things, or added one or more things. But in reading them over several times and listing what I call the bullet points,  they are ALL saying the same thing.

As for comparing Jesus Christ's Church to the Baptist's, Protestants, Catholic, Lutheran, Christian, etc. isn't really a fair and true comparison. The LDS faith - The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the same now as it was when Jesus organized it originally.

As for comparing the history of the church, or the history of any of the latter-day prophets, seers & revelators told to us by various and sundry peoples aka their journals, letters, newspaper articles, said to a friend who then told a friend who then - - - etc., etc. Then claiming that said history has been rewritten is folly. Read the accounts with a pure heart, prayer and true intent by bringing the Holy Spirit into your heart. By ASKING Heavenly Father to give you a clear gift of discernment AND understanding. Ponder what you are readihng. Make notes. Lots of notes.

  • Bullet point those impressions, or highlight them.

Back many years ago when the church released those essays about church history, my niece and her husband's family went all ballistic and left the church over them. Their hue and cry - battle cry was "They lied to us. Everything that was said, taught from Primary, Seminary, Gospel Doctrine & Gospel Principles were lies. Lies, lies, and more lies." After her three Aunties patiently went over her complaints, point by point, and brought evidence of the truth of the recounting. No, there were no lies. Yes there was omissions. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. Milk before pabulum. Pabulum before Meat.

Then the declarations regarding same sex marriage, then later about the children in same sex households. Whoee, you would think that she, her husband, ALL of his near family (Mother, and all siblings & most of the spouses - Father did not enter into this *Stooopid Nonsense*) were gay, lesbian, trans, bi. NONE of them were - are. My nephew-in-law's heritage hails from LDS Pioneers. My neice on the other hand is first generation LDS. Both her parents are from NON-LDS families. My sister basically grew up in the church being the youngest sister to 4 siblings who were baptized at ages 16, 15, 14 and 14.

You bring up historical doesn't back up what has been taught in the LDS church. 

2 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

It is the feeling of everything you thought you knew is being changed.  And there isn't always historical backing to it.  I'm not trying to say all of these things are fiction, just that from an outside perspective it can feel as if history is being rewritten. 

My point of view is that there is historical backing that has *not yet* been discovered. Remember also to take into consideration the author of each revisionist article. Their history within or even without the LDS church. For that reason alone, that is why calling upon the Holy Spirit is paramount in your readings. Discernment. To have discernment in which the Holy Spirit is able to testify of the truth to you, you must stay true to the covenants you have made with Heavenly Father.

Discernment is one of the major gifts that Father has blessed me with. As I have matured in age as well as in my knowledge of the gospel and principles of the gospel, this discernment has grown exponentially, and I have learned to listen, pray, ponder and then take heed of what the Father through the Holy Spirit is saying to me. I am able to discern via the internet, email & snail mail letters, videos, phone calls and of course face to face encounters.

Since *forever* we have been encouraged to pray before, during and after our studies of all church related lessons. It is the same with studying/comparing the different historical essays-writings of the LDS church/ LDS peoples. Pray, ponder then ask the Holy Spirit if it is true. Then listen. Truly listen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

And in fairness, if it all there to begin with, then there would be no need for a restoration.  And further down that road, if the Catholic church really had fallen off the log, then something would have to be afoot, and it does seem understandable that a reformation probably wasn't enough.

There were also several apostasies and restorations between Adam and Jesus, and one apostasy and restoration after Jesus. Moses had come out of an apostasy but the children of Israel couldn't abide it and so Jesus restored the full priesthood authority with the keys to direct the work of sealing on earth and heaven. In there we can see the sealing of men and women being restored to the kind of marriage Adam and Eve had in the Garden of Eden (the Fall being a kind of apostasy and Adam's subsequent tutelage a kind of restoration).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
On 4/11/2019 at 10:03 PM, CommanderSouth said:

I struggle to find the historical precedent. 

Not everything we are supposed to do today was necessarily done in ages past.  That's why we need continuing revelation.  There are eternal principles which will never change.  But most other things are up for grabs because they have their use -- for a time -- then they no longer serve their purpose.  

This is similar to Constitutional Amendments or even simple legal amendments.  We come across a situation that has not been had in all of history. And guess what?  We need to introduce a practice or commandment or policy that has never been enacted in all of history.

I'm not sure what you're referring to about retconing everything.  You'll have to be more specific for an adequate response.  I read your follow up post addressing it.  But I'm still not clear what you're talking about.

Context matters.  It may be that an explanation is adequate with one topic, but completely inapplicable in another.  So, more information is required to address what you're talking about.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now