Is one better off being LDS but not believing 100% in line with the teachings of the church...

[RachelleDrew]

...or not LDS at all?

Sorry if this is a vague question, but I it's the best way I could think of to word it.

Is it better to be baptized in the church, but have a few viewpoints that are drastically out of line with the church, or not baptized at all and completely refuse the teachings of the church? Or does it make a difference to the Lord at all?

Anybody know of any scriptural answers to this?

[georgia2]

baptism is the gate through which one must go to be on the path to exaltation. Once through the gate do we have to be perfect? no. Do we have to understand, comprehend, agree on each point? No. Each of us is at a different spiritual level. Each doctrine of the Gospel has to be understood somewhat so as to receive a testimony of it's truthfulness. It takes time to develop a recognition for the promptings and directions from the Spirit. If a member doesn't agree with a point of doctrine they need to study it out, then pray. A lot of people don;t want to do the studying part.

there is one point of doctrine I DO NOT LIKE! that doesn't make it false. I don't think I'll understand it till i get to the other side.

[Pyotr]

I think Doctrine and Covenants 82:3 says that it would be better if a person wasn't LDS at all, but it's debatable whether having political viewpoints that differ from the LDS mainstream is a sin or not.

[georgia2]

I think Doctrine and Covenants 82:3 says that it would be better if a person wasn't LDS at all, but it's debatable whether having political viewpoints that differ from the LDS mainstream is a sin or not.

isn't that scripture speaking of people who totally do the opposite of what they know to be true?

[prisonchaplain]

From my outside point of view, if one disagrees with an official doctrine of the church (i.e. believes the church is wrong), then how can s/he sustain the church as the one true church, restored in these Latter Days? Is this not the charge against Protestantism--that it is chaotic, allowing for so much diverse opinion about the things of God, when God wants us unified on them?

Maybe the "small stuff" can be a matter of opinion, even if the church teaches it officially? But, if so, who defines what's small and what really matters? This is an excellent question...but I'm guessing the answer will be rather elusive.

[Pyotr]

isn't that scripture speaking of people who totally do the opposite of what they know to be true?

I took it to mean that we're held more responsible the more we know.

[ztodd]

To be baptized you have to believe that the church is the true kingdom of God restored to the earth, that Joseph Smith was and is the true prophet of the restoration, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, that the current prophet (President Monson) is the true prophet on the earth today, that God lives, that Jesus Christ is the son of God and Savior of the world... did I leave anything out?

If you believe these things, and you are living worthily, you can be baptized. The way I feel is that you just have to be able to say you believe them. You don't have to be able to say you know them at this point. From there you can develop your testimony of the rest of the gospel.

Edited October 24, 2008 by ztodd
added something I forgot

[banmexico]

Georgia, Remember this. The more you know the more you are accountable. This isnt bad, but the more we learn the more responsibility we have to live the correct way. Ive been a member of the Church for twenty years and do not understand all things. Somethings I know I will have to learn after my life on earth. With my limited earthly brain I can not understand all of God's plan. However I do know that if we following the teaching of the LDS church that we will be closer to Heavenly Father than any other church that I know. The idea of eternal families has got to be a big part "the heart" of the church. I know that this is Jesus Christ church, and these are all his teachings. Hopefully one day I can understand all the principals. Probably not in this lifetime but I know we will learn them all.

Gergia, Just remember that as a member of this church we learn things very simply. "Line upon Line and Precept upon Precept". So the more we learn the more we CAN learn. Stay focused and you will find your way.

[Snow]

I think Doctrine and Covenants 82:3 says that it would be better if a person wasn't LDS at all,

That's not what D&C 82:3 says at all. What is says is:

"For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation."

It says nothing about holding viewpoints that are out of line with the Church.

but it's debatable whether having political viewpoints that differ from the LDS mainstream is a sin or not.

That ain't debatable at all. Having differing political viewpoints is not a sin, though it is so obvious, it hardly bears mentioning.

[Moksha]

I think a lot of Mormons hold a variety of opinions about this or that. What binds them together is that the Church meets their spiritual needs. Other than that, many support and defend every statement ever made by any Church leader, while others take an on balance approach because they disagree with some point here and there. For the latter group, it is important to keep individual views to yourself

.

[deseretgov]

I think it depends on the issues. Obviously if the issues are believing in modern prophets and that the Book of Mormon is scripture, then perhaps it might be best not to be a member. BUt as far as most other issues are concerned it's not that big of deal. We are all at different levels of understanding. It's up to us to learn and grow. Where that learning and growth will take us only God knows.

[jimuk]

Believing in our leaders and following their teachings and advise is good, if in the end some of this advise turns out to be contrary to what heavenly father would have us do then it will not be us that will be judged for those actions, we have been told to listen and follow our church leaders.

Back to the original question.

If you believe that Brother Joseph did indeed see heavenly father and Jesus, and that he was a Prophet , and you believe in the basics that the church is the true church restored on the earth, well you "WILL" seek to become a part of it, the holy spirit will see to that lol. And If you fight against the Holy spirit it is fighting against gods will, "then i feel" It is better a man had not been born at all. Strong words i know, but i did say that it was what i feel. (dont tell me off snow lol).

If one believes the church to be true then it is the Holy Spirit that has manifest this unto you. With so much bad/sad written and said about "The church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints" Heavenly father has set a spark, to communicate with your spirit for to guide you home, so allow the spirit to carry you back, and to complete the mission that you set out on from before your birth.

[RachelleDrew]

"If you believe that Brother Joseph did indeed see heavenly father and Jesus, and that he was a Prophet , and you believe in the basics that the church is the true church restored on the earth, well you "WILL" seek to become a part of it, the holy spirit will see to that lol. "

I think a lot of people misunderstood my question, which is not surprising because it was very vague. I'm not asking about the basics of LDS history, i'm asking about issues more akin to political and moral viewpoints. For example, gay marriage and abortion. These are two things that the church has made very cut and dry statements on.

With that in mind, please don't debate the two points I just brought up in this thread, there are enough of those already in here. My thought is, if you don't agree with the church on these issues, then does it really matter if you were baptized in the church or not? I've had a lot of people tell me that someone either follows the prophet 100% or they don't, and that there is no in between. So does that mean that if I disagree with the church's stance on issues like that above, I might as well not have joined at all?

Just curious if there are scriptural nods to help answer my question, thanks for all the answers so far.

[bytor2112]

Testimonies grow over time and difficult doctrine becomes less difficult. Personal moral beliefs that intersect with politics may change for each individual over time as well. I think that a newly baptized person who had been living in a very secular world may not come to the same conclusion as to the moral relevance of "gay" marriage or abortion or whatever as maybe someone who has been a long term, faithful member of the church. We all learn and grow at different paces and in the end I think it is direction and not velocity that will count. So, I think it is better to be baptized and cling to the truths you have gained a testimony of and time and faith and the Holy Spirit will work out the rest.

For those who stray...there is always a way back......but the climb is much steeper after you have made sacred covenants in the Temple.

"For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation."

Edited October 24, 2008 by bytor2112

[Justice]

What about the temple?

[bytor2112]

What about the temple?

I am assuming you are referencing my quote.......to clarify, if one strays after baptism the repentance path is not quite as steep as for those who have been to the Temple and stray....meaning serious transgression. I think it better to be baptized than not, but not go to the Temple until one is ready.

[Guest DeborahC]

It seems to me (in inactive LDS person) that if a person has problems with some of the doctrine, but agrees with MOST of it, it would be beneficial to stay in the community of LDS folk, if for no other reason than that by TRYING to understand, and praying for guidance, you're more likely to find answers while INSIDE that community than while outside, with all the temptations of society. Does this make sense? I know what I'm trying to say.

For me, for example, one reason I do not attend is because of health. The perfume literally makes me sick for 4 days after.

But if it weren't for that, I'd be more inclined to attend, even though I have a few unresolved issues with doctrine. Maybe I wouldn't get a Temple Recommend renewed, and maybe I wouldn't even have a strong Testimony. But I'd be fellowshipping with the right people, and perhaps their good examples would lead me -- I'd be encouraged to live a GOOD life and would be more protected from the BAD examples I might find outside the Church.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

Now if I could just get all the people to stop wearing scented products, I could test my theory ::laughing::

[Hemidakota]

...or not LDS at all?

Sorry if this is a vague question, but I it's the best way I could think of to word it.

Is it better to be baptized in the church, but have a few viewpoints that are drastically out of line with the church, or not baptized at all and completely refuse the teachings of the church? Or does it make a difference to the Lord at all?

Anybody know of any scriptural answers to this?

What did the Lord say about being "luke warm?"

[Hemidakota]

"If you believe that Brother Joseph did indeed see heavenly father and Jesus, and that he was a Prophet , and you believe in the basics that the church is the true church restored on the earth, well you "WILL" seek to become a part of it, the holy spirit will see to that lol. "

I think a lot of people misunderstood my question, which is not surprising because it was very vague. I'm not asking about the basics of LDS history, i'm asking about issues more akin to political and moral viewpoints. For example, gay marriage and abortion. These are two things that the church has made very cut and dry statements on.

With that in mind, please don't debate the two points I just brought up in this thread, there are enough of those already in here. My thought is, if you don't agree with the church on these issues, then does it really matter if you were baptized in the church or not? I've had a lot of people tell me that someone either follows the prophet 100% or they don't, and that there is no in between. So does that mean that if I disagree with the church's stance on issues like that above, I might as well not have joined at all?

Just curious if there are scriptural nods to help answer my question, thanks for all the answers so far.

Right now, even questioning the prophet and those leadership of the church with this latest Prop 8 for California. Those members failed to realized, it is not the final word of those who run the church but it is the final decision of the Savior to His leadership. Either we follow all doctrines and principles that He has given us or pay the heavy price.

Do not feel that Scriptures have ended based upon those early clerics who were either apostates or pagans, making a final decision what is canonize what is not. Scriptures come almost daily with the brethren, from the smallest revelations on sending a young boy or girl on a mission, to the latest Prop 8. However, all of which is given to pray in displaying the importancy that it is not our WILL but HIS WILL.

[MarginOfError]

"If you believe that Brother Joseph did indeed see heavenly father and Jesus, and that he was a Prophet , and you believe in the basics that the church is the true church restored on the earth, well you "WILL" seek to become a part of it, the holy spirit will see to that lol. "

I think a lot of people misunderstood my question, which is not surprising because it was very vague. I'm not asking about the basics of LDS history, i'm asking about issues more akin to political and moral viewpoints. For example, gay marriage and abortion. These are two things that the church has made very cut and dry statements on.

With that in mind, please don't debate the two points I just brought up in this thread, there are enough of those already in here. My thought is, if you don't agree with the church on these issues, then does it really matter if you were baptized in the church or not? I've had a lot of people tell me that someone either follows the prophet 100% or they don't, and that there is no in between. So does that mean that if I disagree with the church's stance on issues like that above, I might as well not have joined at all?

Just curious if there are scriptural nods to help answer my question, thanks for all the answers so far.

I'm a little hesitant to give my answer because I've read some of your posts in the past and fear that what I have to say may be disagreeable to you. Please understand that I do not wish to pass judgment and very much respect you and your opinions as you have presented them on the boards.

First off, I think the translation of our religious morals into the political arena is a factor that doesn't need to be considered in one's decision to join the Church. The only questions that needs to be answered in this decision are, "Is this Church the only place I can obtain all that is necessary for salvation?" and "Am I willing to live the Gospel as taught by this Church?" (okay, maybe not the only questions, but I hope you see what I'm getting at).

Some might argue that your questions falls under the category of "Am I willing to live the Gospel as taught by this Church?" I both agree and disagree with them.

We'll start with abortion. The Church teaches that abortion is wrong. I believe that members of the Church should strive to learn and understand why the Church believes it is wrong. Members of the Church should also do their best to bring their personal standards in line with this; that is, each member would strive to be persuaded that abortion is wrong. As bytor said, this may take time for people who come into the Church having learned the opposite. To not agree now is probably okay, but to say I'll never agree is getting into trouble.

However, the suggestion that each member of the Church should strive to understand why abortion is wrong does not, in my opinion, automatically translate into a similar political position. More specifically, I think it is wrong to say that because you are LDS you must vote pro-life. Our votes and political motivations should represent the fairness with which we feel the pluralist society we live in should operate. Thus, if you personally feel so strongly about abortion that you want all people, regardless of their moral position, to live by your morals, then vote pro-life. If you feel uncomfortable with that, vote pro-choice. I don't think it really matters, so long as you make it clear to people that your morals dictate abortion is wrong.

I tend to view same sex marriage in the same way. As a member of the Church, I strive to understand why it is wrong. I try very hard to keep my personal choices and morals in line with what has been revealed to us through the prophets. I live my life accordingly. But when it gets to the political stage, I'm torn. Because of my personal morals, I feel uncomfortable voting for same sex marriage, but at the same time, I feel uncomfortable voting against it. No matter how hard I try, in the political arena, I can't get my mind and my heart to agree on this issue. Right now, I'm in a place where I have to decide whether to follow my mind or my heart. What I am careful to do is make sure that it is clear that I believe homosexual relations are wrong, regardless of what political side wins the debate.

I think that whether or not you are better off being baptized or not depends on your personal choices and morals, and how you apply them to yourselves. I don't think that how you choose to apply them to others in the political sphere is of much consequence to your eternal salvation.

[Misshalfway]

What did the Lord say about being "luke warm?"

well....this is a good point but I just don't know if it applies here. It is a very black and white and quite "justice" oriented IMO.

Look, the issues that the OP made are complicated and emotionally charged and sometimes morally confusing. We live in a time when wrongs look right and right looks out of touch with reality.

RachelDrew, I think that it is important to build on the testimony you have. Testimony is more than just hearing doctrine and agreeing with it. Testimony is knowledge given from God and it becomes written on ones soul as we move forward in obedience.

Here is an example from my own life. Polygamy. Hate it. Hate the idea. Hate the implications. Don't understand outside of intellectual argument why it was part of the restoration. BUT, I know I felt the Spirit telling me it was true. And so.....I put my trust in God above my ability to understand and agree and leave it until my heart can understand more.

I don't see your concern as being anything different.

The issues you listed and your possible objection to the churches stand simply means that you need more light and knowledge on the matter and perhaps following the admonition of James may help you here. Perhaps a study of the proclamation of the family and what the brethren have spoken concerning those issues. And then a little time and seasoning in your life helps too.

And then, put your trust and faith in place until the knowledge comes. You should not feel that because you disagree with some political position of the church that you can't continue walking along the path while holding to the rod. It just means that you have some work to do to reconcile yourself with the will of the Lord....whether you agree with it or not. Sometimes we obey, even when we disagree. Perhaps you could look to Jonah for a lesson there. When God says go to Nineva.....well, we learn to go to Nineva even when we don't see the big picture clearly.

Remember patience and long suffering ........ even with yourself!

Edited October 24, 2008 by Misshalfway
punctuation

[Hemidakota]

As you clearly stated, it is our testimony that is truly the cornerstone of our beliefs that requires complete obedience. Regarding personal testimony, it can titer as a swinging pendulum on a daily basis and alayws require us to do a self-examination on what needs improvement.

[Misshalfway]

Well, and the Lord said "Come follow me." He didn't qualify that by saying "agree with me first."

[Hemidakota]

Good one....I will need to use that one in a future talk.

[Dove]

Right now, even questioning the prophet and those leadership of the church with this latest Prop 8 for California. Those members failed to realized, it is not the final word of those who run the church but it is the final decision of the Savior to His leadership. Either we follow all doctrines and principles that He has given us or pay the heavy price.

Do not feel that Scriptures have ended based upon those early clerics who were either apostates or pagans, making a final decision what is canonize what is not. Scriptures come almost daily with the brethren, from the smallest revelations on sending a young boy or girl on a mission, to the latest Prop 8. However, all of which is given to pray in displaying the importancy that it is not our WILL but HIS WILL.

eeuuww!!

Okay, ready to get off your soap box now?!

So, since you seem to have all the answers, I'm curious as to why we all don't worship you instead of God?! After all, it seems you have deemed that anyone who has an iota of a differing opinion from the brethren of the church ought to be spewed from out of His mouth~ or is it your mouth?!

I'm so grateful that it is to Him that I answer, and not people that hold such harsh, critical opinions as you do.

While I believe in respecting the priesthood authority, and in respecting inspiration, from sad experience I know all too well that the priesthood is held by all too fallible, human, and at times selfish, men.

D&C 121~

34 Behold, there are many acalled, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

35 Because their ahearts are set so much upon the things of this bworld, and caspire to the dhonors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

36 That the arights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be bcontrolled nor handled only upon the cprinciples of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to acover our bsins, or to gratify our cpride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or ddominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens ewithdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to akick against the pricks, to bpersecute the saints, and to cfight against God.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the anature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little bauthority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise cunrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but afew are chosen.

41 No apower or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the bpriesthood, only by cpersuasion, by dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By akindness, and pure bknowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the csoul without dhypocrisy, and without eguile—

I quote this because your messages are so without love or compassion, and seem to come from the vantage point that you keep this concept perfectly while the rest of us do not....

Also, I have witnessed plenty of times men in authority do just what these prior scriptures testify to. It is through hard experience that I have realized that truly it is "amen to their priesthood authority" when they do these things.

Dove