So I’m reading Jesus: First-Century Rabbi (Paraclete Press, 2014) by Rabbi David Laslow. He’s a practicing rabbi, not a scholar or academic. He emphasizes the Jewish context in which the Jesus of the gospels lived and preached and worked. He highlights how both Christianity and rabbinic Judaism emerged from the same historical period and, consequently, how much they have in common. Here’s a concept that really jumped out to me: Replacement theology.
It came up in the discussion of the transition in Judaism from temple-focused practices and theology to what happened after the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 AD.
Judaism was slowly morphing from Temple-based spiritual practices to synagogue and home-based practices. To accomplish this feat, the rabbis needed to tie every prayer and every ritual they innovated to the Temple rite itself. … For example, where Jews once lit fires in the Temple in Jerusalem, candles are now lit on Sabbath evening. Where fruit, grain, animal offerings, and charity were once brought to the Temple along with personal prayers, Jews now offer prayers and charity wherever they are.
Jesus: First-Century Rabbi (Paraclete Press, 2014) by Rabbi David Laslow, p. 38
Religions and particular denominations are fairly conservative institutions. They make small adjustments and changes to doctrine or practice over time, but only when circumstances require it. Big changes are always risky. Replacement theology is the theological explanation or justification for big changes. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t.
What about Mormonism? Our Big Change was the abandonment of plural marriage at the end of the 19th century. It took decades to get the practice itself discontinued and even longer to develop a replacement theology. I think we are still working on in it! Initially, patriarchal polygamy was replaced by patriarchal monogamy (one submissive wife instead of several), which was really only a partial abandonment of polygamy. Patriarchal monogamy is more like polygamy with one wife. I would argue that it wasn’t until the publication of the Proclamation on the Family and the subsequent focus on the egalitarian language in that document (“fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners”) that the LDS Church has really articulated an adequate replacement theology for patriarchal polygamy. Recent changes to the wording of sacred temple covenants, as reported in the media, underlines the full emergence of egalitarian monogamy as a replacement theology for patriarchal polygamy.
Not all doctrines or practices that become untenable need to be replaced or upgraded — some just quietly disappear, such as female ritual healing practices within Mormonism. There might be other examples of replacement theology within Mormonism, such as the current initiative to describe Joseph Smith’s translations as inspired writing, not literal translations.
Replacement theology seems like a very helpful concept to keep in mind while reading Mormon history and trying to understand the development of Mormon doctrine.
Any other examples?
Wheat & Tares 
Polygamy is still front and center in the Temple and will be as long as men can be sealed to multiple wives for eternity. All that has changed is in this life a man cannot be sealed to to more than one living wife. So I don’t see the doctrine has been replaced nor is it really on a path to quietly disappear. Additional action will be required to make that happen.
The biggest example I can think of of replacement theology was the vision found in Section 76 which, in 1832, basically changed every definition of heaven and hell found in The Book of Mormon which had only been printed a few years before.
The sealing power, which was used to justify polygamy, was introduced in Nauvoo (1842?) and made it possible for Saints to become part of the Abrahamic Covenant. A few years after the first manifesto (1894?), that idea of being tied to a church leader to be linked into the Abrahamic covenant was replaced with the doctrine that you just need to seal yourself to your dead relatives and God would fix all the links later.
I think that BY’s teaching of spirit creation and spirit destruction replaced JS doctrine of the eternal nature of our spirits. In my mind, later efforts to harmonize the two teachings have left huge holes in LDS theology of exaltation and eternal progression.
Valiance in the preexistance determining your state in this mortal probation is a sticky theology that we have tried to walk away from, but can’t quite get it done. It has been disavowed that it determines skin color, but the youth of this church are still being told that they were among the most valiant saved for these the latter days.
In the last few days, I have read a lot of things about the temple changes and about a fuss that is going on among the fundies who think that progressives have hijacked the church. There was a male female proclamation posted on chapel doors somewhere in Utah. I do believe that our definition of what it means to preside and eternal roles of genders are being replaced before our very eyes. I am excited to see how it all shakes out and I am very pleased with the way this particular theology is trending.
I see secularism as a giant replacement theology. I see the book Sapiens, which I loved, unfortunately being used as a weapon against religion. Doctors have proved more trustworthy in healing people and chemists can kills pests and weeds better than prayers can.
For believers of God all over the world, the basic religious belief that we are fallen and have become separated from God and in need of some reconciliation has not changed.
Furthermore, as long as the word “preside” is used to describe a man’s relationship to his family, as it now is in the sealing ceremony, and remains in the Proclamation on the Family, talk of egalitarianism replacing patriarchy is just talk. I don’t see a “full emergence” of egalitarian monogamy at all.
Elephant in the room.
Correlation of the late 20th century replaced the heart and soul of the auxiliaries and empowered the hierarchy.
“is more like polygamy with one wife”
It would seem to require that the one wife has multiple personalities.
“I don’t see a full emergence”of egalitarian monogamy at all.”
Nor can there be. The differences can be reduced in some ways; but a perfectly egalitarian social arrangement would likely be paralyzed at every step as there cannot be a tie-breaker. Not even your clone is likely to think exactly as you think, want exactly what you want.
In my house I have the priesthood. My wife has everything else.
“Valiance in the preexistance determining your state in this mortal probation is a sticky theology that we have tried to walk away from,”
Who is “we”? I haven’t walked away from it. The lesson found in the book of Abraham is that IF you can find any difference between two spirits (or two of pretty much anything), it implies the existence of a least and a greatest. If I have a big tomato and a little tomato, somewhere is the Supreme Tomato.
Of them, the greatest are also most likely to be sent where they are most needed or most useful. It is not clear to me what is the scale, or what is being measured. Many virtues exist.
But that’s just my opinion.