Modern revelation or retraction of bad doctrine?
Modern Revelation or Retraction of Bad Doctrine?
In the religious landscape of Mormonism, the concept of revelation is both a cornerstone and a conundrum. When former members confront their beliefs, one question often arises: Is the principle of modern revelation a divine guide or merely a means to retract untenable doctrines? While the Church portrays modern revelation as evidence of a continually guided faith, critics see it as an adjustment to inconvenient dogmas. This dichotomy matters because it challenges how adherents and scholars perceive the legitimacy and evolution of religious doctrine within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).
Historical Context of Mormon Revelation
The LDS Church's foundation is steeped in the narrative of divine revelation. Founded by Joseph Smith in the early 19th century, Mormonism originated with the claim of new scriptures revealed through the Book of Mormon, followed by further revelations compiled in the Doctrine and Covenants. Early Church teachings included controversial doctrines like polygamy and racial restrictions, both presented as divine mandates. Over time, these teachings were modified or repealed, leading to debates over whether these adjustments were new revelations or retractions aimed at aligning with contemporary values and legal pressures.
Key Claims and Documented Changes
Central to this discussion is how and why certain doctrines have changed. Two examples stand out: the shift in the Church's stance on polygamy and the reversal of the racial priesthood ban. Polygamy: Once declared essential for exaltation, polygamy was hastily abandoned in 1890 after the U.S. government threatened severe sanctions. Was this abandonment a revelation or a practical necessity? Priesthood Ban: The 1978 revelation lifting the ban on black men holding the priesthood came amid growing civil rights pressure and internal dissent. Critics argue this change responded more to external forces than divine inspiration.