Last_Daze

I don't think there is anything in the missionaries' conduct that violates that aspect of the Articles; as others have said, no one is forced to listen to the missionaries' spiel. Speaking for myself, I 'rejected' missionaries' advances on three occasions during my life before I was finally ready to become a serious investigator into the LDS church. I never felt coerced; I still don't . I don't doubt that there are some missionaries who probably have and do cross that line (wherever one wishes to draw it) but I've never come across one.

I came across a relatively old story to the effect that Deseret Books will no longer be publishing Bruce R. McConkie's classic work Mormon Doctrine. While I have never read it, I am aware both of its contents and the reasons that it is unpopular among many people, containing as it does large amounts of speculation, teachings presented as official doctrine which are not, and things that are just flat-out incorrect or wrong. It also seems that the Church itself is trying to distance itself from the work, having (for instance) removed all references to MD from the newest Gospel Principles book. It does occur to me, though, that to my limited knowledge BRM's work is one of the few attempts ever made to really put a systematic Mormon theology down on paper, and that for all the flak he took over it, he did a pretty good job. So I have a couple of questions, some of which may be unanswerable, but I'd like to get thoughts on it, as a person who is trying to learn everything about Mormonism and the Church as possible. Is Mormon Doctrine still an accurate representation, anachronisms(etc.) notwithstanding, of what is taught by the church? If not, is there any kind of 'systematic Mormon theology'; an authoritative source for everything the church teaches? And if the church is trying, for whatever reason, to distance itself from the work, would it still be a bad thing to read it to learn about Mormon theology (assuming a foreknowledge of the problems with the work?

Indeed. For whatever reason, the idea of theosis and joint-heirship with Christ, so common throughout early Christian thought and still prevalent in Eastern Orthodox and Catholic thought, has for whatever reason fallen out of vogue with the Protestant world. The layperson may be unaware of it; the theologian may be vaguely aware of it, whether he subscribes to it or not. To speak of it so bluntly then creates serious misunderstandings, made all the more serious by the current state of the discussion, in which evangelical protestants are often eager to tell the LDS Church what it teaches and believes, rather than listening to a serious explanation. Better, perhaps, to let the matter lie, and focus on things which might be less controversial in an ecumenical setting.

Dravin, you helped me understand a little better what we are getting at here; I can get on board with almost everything you said. The problem, as I see it, is that it is difficult to make teaching about chastity and sexuality all rainbows and unicorns because, frankly, the Law of Chastity is more about 'don'ts' than it is about 'dos'. Quite simply, the positive commandments inherent in the LoC are outweighed by the negative commandments, especially in its application to the prevailing secular ethic of our time regarding sexuality. I don't know that it is itself positive or negative; it simply "is." One way to make it more positive, I guess, is to encourage marriage at a younger age (assuming the couple are ready for marriage). Average age at first marriage is somewhere in the neighborhood of 26 yrs these days.

With respect, Shorty, I understand that you find the Law of Chastity and the teachings of (lets face it) virtually every major religion with respect to sexuality negative. I wonder if you would tell us what, in your mind, would constitute a 'positive' teaching vis a vis unmarried persons and sexuality. That might go a good way to making your point a bit clearer. As a general matter, I have to agree with Dravin; if the only way to put a positive spin on sexuality means actually having sex (irrespective of marital status), then it is just not going to happen. It is not a question of sexuality being positive or negative; it is unequivocally positive in the proper context, and unequivocally negative when divorced from that context. It is a gift from our Creator; like all such gifts, it is meant to be used properly. The scriptures and the teaching of the church are quite clear in this regard: keep your pants on until you are married.

Hold up now; you mean there aren't secret priesthood meetings? Darn; I'd hoped to attend those if/when I was able to receive the priesthood. I guess it is just going to be much less interesting than I thought it would be.

Well, half the things that are referenced as 'Mormon beliefs' are things that are no longer taught by the church. Accuracy, as always, is beside the point. The mere hint at the existence of a 'secret Mormon language' should be enough to throw these people into an absolute tizzy.

Someone ought to send a memo about this 'secret Mormon language' to all the anti-Mormon propagandists out there. I'm amazed they don't already have this in their arsenal; it seems like exactly the sort of thing they would be into.

Agreed completely, but that isn't really what I was getting at. My question, as Wingnut mentioned, was regarding false doctrine being preached from the pulpit. That has nothing to do with preparation, or being touched by the Spirit; false doctrine is false doctrine.

Thanks for the replies, folks. My thing is that I think it might just be difficult to find books that fit what I am looking for. I have no interest in an anti-LDS hatchet job (G-D knows how abundant those are), but I also don't have a huge interest in hagiographies, sanitized histories or anything of that sort. I just want something that is going to be honest about how things were and are.

Golly, that must have been one really bad testimony! I would think cutting someone off in a testimony meeting would be even rarer than seeing it done in a normal sacrament talk, given the deeply personal nature of the thing. Was it just that the bishop had a really quick hook, or was something really, really out of bounds said?

Well, just to elaborate, that is one of the reasons that I asked the question. I heard a story recently in which Sister X had given a sacrament talk in which she posited some pretty bad theology and seriously misrepresented church teaching, generally causing scandal in the ward; in the words of the story-teller, it took "two full RS meetings and one EQ meeting to undo the damage." I was thinking to myself that it would be easier to exercise 'quality control' on the front end than to have to do damage control on the back end.

First off, I understand that people giving sacrament talks are not professional speakers, and no one expects them to be. Most of them are probably scared to death to be up there anyhow. So that is not the focus of my question. That said, I am wondering what (if any) kind of 'quality control' is exercised in preparing speakers at meetings to avoid things like bad theology, mis-characterising church teaching, presenting things as doctrine which actually are not, discussing things that are just not appropriate for the setting*, etc. Of course, not everyone is a professional (or even amateur) theologian, but given that these talks are a form of teaching the faith, I was just wondering what exactly goes on behind the scenes with regard to that. *I don't have a particular example in mind, but I am sure that longtime members will have plenty of ideas.

Hey y'all, I am looking for a good book on the early history of the LDS church (ie, Joseph Smith through the exodus and the early years in Utah). Not necessarily one 'endorsed' by the church, but not one openly critical of the church either. Any thoughts?

There is the old Latin adage abusus non tollit usum, which basically suggests that abuse is not an argument against proper use. Just because something can be (and often is) horrifically misused does not mean that it should not be used properly and in the proper context. Sexuality is a gift from God and part of the beauty of creation; like all of God's gifts, it is meant to be used properly. Scripture and the teachings of the church lay out very clearly what the proper use is, at least for those who are part of the church. That's what the Law of Chastity is all about.

I think the question we are all asking is this: Can we use it to pay our tithe?

We might note that the difference between the 'most depressed state' (UTAH) and the 'least depressed state' (SOUTH DAKOTA) is not very large statistically speaking. Of course, I cannot find the NIMH statistics on the matter , but it is something like 3-4 percentage points of difference. Additionally, Utah's suicide rate, while well above the national average, is roughly the same as other states in the Rocky Mountain region (esp. Nevada, Colorado and Montana). On the matter of high rates of antidepressant use among Utahans (esp. women), this can be spun two ways. There is the obvious one, that there is something 'in the water' in Utah that makes people more depressed (in other words, that UT really does have a higher rate of depression than other states). Alternatively, one could suggest that the higher rate of medication is a product of being better able to identify and seek treatment for one's problems than elsewhere. The point, I guess, is that I am seriously disinclined to believe that any of this has much at all to do with the LDS Church as such. It is no surprise that some critics are using it as more evidence (of what, I am unsure) against the church and religion in general.

If you'll permit me just to share my thoughts on the matter (as an investigator). I know a few converts to the church; some have left, and a couple remain. I think I can echo those who say that it has little, if anything, to do with doctrine. Rather, I think it has to do with two main things: 1) The missionary lessons don't include a lot about the history of the church, or cover anything but the Gospel as currently taught by the church. So the new convert learns about stuff from church history, like the ban on black men in the Priesthood, or the Mountain Meadows incident, or some obscure statement by Brigham Young or some other church leader, or something that was taught in the past but is no longer taught as doctrine by the church. The reaction is something to the effect of "OMG, that happened?!?!!? They lied to me! I can't believe it!" They get this idea that because they were not told about every jot and tittle of church history by the missionaries, they were deceived and the church is not what it was made out to be. (Whether this happens through 'anti-Mormon propaganda' is uncertain. I am sure it does for some.) 2) More serious (and unfortunate, from my point of view), is that the convert realizes that the church socially is not what they thought it would be. I think that a lot of people are coming to the church seeking a strong, close-knit faith community where people believe strongly, support each other, and live their faith out in their daily lives. Many are actively seeking this kind of environment. Of course, because the church and its people are not perfect (regardless of the level of organization) they become disillusioned and leave. I think the second point has the most to do with an inability to integrate into the community post-baptism. I think it is incumbent upon the community to do everything they can to help the new convert along; I'm glad to hear that people, around here at least, seem to agree with that. No question at all, Pres. Hinckley was correct when he said that every convert needs three things: a friend, a calling/responsibility, and nurturing with the Word.

Just because I didn't want to start posting cold, I thought I'd come on the intro board and do this. I'm 23 years old, a 2nd year law student, and though I wasn't raised in any church, I've been a more-or-less traditional Christian (read: mainstream Protestant) for most of my adult life. My first awareness of the LDS church was when they opened a branch in my tiny hometown in Wisconsin when I was 16; later on, when I did my undergraduate work in Minneapolis, I would walk past the LDS Institute of Religion every day on my way to class. Over the years, I've become very interested in the LDS church (its theology and way of life), and just a couple weeks ago I decided to show up cold at the local ward for Sunday services, just to see what was up. I'm now working with the missionaries, learning more about the church and the LDS view of the gospel of Christ, and I am very excited. I am also very concerned, as my parents, despite not being particularly religious themselves, are quite anti-Mormon; and my long-time girlfriend has no interest whatsoever in the church. I don't know what will happen in the future, but for now I am learning and trusting the Lord to guide me. Whatever other bridges are out there, I will cross when I come to them. If you've read this far, thanks for reading. I'll probably be popping up with some dumb questions. I hope you all will take pity on me and help me out if you can. :) Peace to all!