Compromising your religion to "keep up with the times" (Jesus Christ, ritual)

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by jeffrey

Great points, fluffy, Michel! Times change. It took 150 years for the Catholic church to figure out that blacks have souls too. It took the IRS threatening the Mormon church with removal of their tax exempt status before changing their attitude towards blacks. In the south, during and before the civil war, religion deemed blacks as inferior. the Constitution only allowed Indians 1/4 of a vote.

But people like that weren't following the gospel, or the Bible. They were changing it to be popular as well. Live in a slave nation? Well, I'll just change the bible juuuust a bit, so it actually says that slavery is good.

BTW: The mormons changed their policy due to revelation (that their policies weren't what they should be following), not a threat from the IRS.

[linwood]

If a religion doesn`t "compromise" it`s edicts to keep up with the times it will suffer and die.

This has been seen in every religion I`ve looked at.
Even a religion as young as LDS has made changes to it`s scripture to reflect changing times.

[jeffrey]

Regardless of weather it was by 'revelation' or pressure, is beside the point. Churches change their position usually for the better. But they do change. Sometimes change is slow. Sometimes to slow...

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by jeffrey

Regardless of weather it was by 'revelation' or pressure, is beside the point. Churches change their position usually for the better. But they do change. Sometimes change is slow. Sometimes to slow...

That's not "beside the point"; it is the point. That's the difference. If a religion doesn't claim to get its changes from God (I'm once again speaking of christianity) it has no right to change anything at all.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

That's not "beside the point"; it is the point. That's the difference. If a religion doesn't claim to get its changes from God (I'm once again speaking of christianity) it has no right to change anything at all.

Shouldn't you add, "In my opinion "?

[jeffrey]

Originally Posted by michel

Shouldn't you add, "In my opinion "?

In my opinion, that's a good point!

[jeffrey]

Aqualung, please do not be offended by what I'm about to say, but not all people believe that your prophets are prophets. Just as many do not believe the Pope is infallible. What you are saying is the only people that can change the bible are Mormons, seeing you believe that your church is the only church that has prophets. IMO, the bible never changes, just how we interpret it does.

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by jeffrey

Aqualung, please do not be offended by what I'm about to say, but not all people believe that your prophets are prophets. Just as many do not believe the Pope is infallible. What you are saying is the only people that can change the bible are Mormons, seeing you believe that your church is the only church that has prophets. IMO, the bible never changes, just how we interpret it does.

I know that most people don't believe he's a prophet. But at least he claims to be, and at least the church claims to change based on revelation, not on personal conviction. It doesn't matter if you believe he's a prophet or not. Can you at least claim that your changes come from God, and not from man?

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by michel

Shouldn't you add, "In my opinion "?

that's what all debate