Do you need to accept all the Church's teachings whole cloth?

[Vegemighty]

As I've said before, I like the mormon church. But there are just a few extraordinary claims I don't think are fact, and are getting in the way of my conversion. I won't list them here because I dont want the discussion to be sidetracked. But feel free to ask if you want.

So how far does the church go into dictating what is true? Would holding a belief contra to the official version of the church put you in a compromising position with say holding a priesthood or temple recommend? How small in importance does that belief have to be for it to not be an issue? and who decides?

[slamjet]

If it's a matter whether Coke (the soda) is prohibited or not in the Word of Wisdom then I don't see a problem. If its an issue of whether the first vision was real or not, then yea, that would be an issue.

[skippy740]

I heard long time ago that the word "saint" means student. We are students of the word, and not hearers only.

What does that mean?

D&C 9:7-9

7Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

The church doesn't dictate but encourage you to study what has been revealed about certain subjects.

Now, I'm going to open a can of worms here. The whole Prop 8 thing a few years ago brought up all kinds of debate on this issue. Here's my own stance: You must learn what doctrine/teaching is being taught. Seek to learn the Lord's view on it versus the opinions of the world. Seek to understand WHY the Lord has His views as they are. Then you have to ask yourself "Who's side are you on?"

This is studying the will of the Lord, versus just "following blindly". That was a bigger issue for the membership of the church. I think most people have been accustomed to just "following". That is my opinion.

I don't want to volunteer other ideas, but I think the verse above is rather self-explanatory. Learn to put your will in alignment with the Lord's... and you won't have any issues. You will live your life in accordance with the Gospel Truths and you will have peace and happiness.

We've talked about ALL KINDS of issues on this board. I would encourage you to share what you're thinking about, so we can help.

[NeuroTypical]

So how far does the church go into dictating what is true? Would holding a belief contra to the official version of the church put you in a compromising position with say holding a priesthood or temple recommend? How small in importance does that belief have to be for it to not be an issue? and who decides?

The church figures it knows what is true. It's job is to hold out an inviting hand to everyone and explain why it believes what it believes. If you wanna be LDS and only belive part of it, fine /w me. The church forces nobody to participate or accept anything (although parents might).

Priesthood is for believers. Temple recommends even more so. If you want either, you'll be sitting down with someone who will ask you what you believe. For the priesthood, they'll pretty much decide, based on your answers, on whether to advance you in the priesthood. It is possible that someone would be willing to advance you to various priesthood offices, even though you're struggling with belief. Temple recommends are more stringent. A series of simple yes/no questions about what you believe and what you do and don't do. If you give a no where a yes is being looked for (or vice versa), you pretty much won't be having a temple recommend.

You can always lie, and sometimes it will 'work', although there are obvious questions about how wise or useful such a course of action would be. After all, if I don't really like the game of chess, I could probably lie my way into a chess club by pretending to like it, but what would be the point?

Regardless of what you decide and how you proceed, you're ok in my book. I spent a decade wrestling with such questions, and where I am today isn't where I was in the past. We all find ourselves not currently who we'll be later on. We're all on a journey.

Happy choosing!

[rameumptom]

You will have to accept the core doctrines and principles of the gospel.

A review of the Articles of Faith will give you an idea of what much of this entails. Most things beyond this would be rules or teachings that are not necessary for salvation.

the baptismal interview questions include:

• Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?
• Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?
• What does it mean to you to repent? Do you feel that you have repented of your past transgressions?
• Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have you ever participated in an abortion? a homosexual relationship?
• You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes living gospel standards. What do you understand of the following standards? Are you willing to obey them?
  • The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a legal marriage between a man and a woman?
  • The law of tithing.
  • The Word of Wisdom.
  • The Sabbath day, including partaking of the sacrament weekly and rendering service to fellow members.
• When you are baptized, you covenant with God that you are willing to take upon yourself the name of Christ and keep His commandments throughout your life. Are you ready to make this covenant and strive to be faithful to it?

(The above was quoted from the manual Preach My Gospel, page 206)

If you answer yes to any of the questions entailed in point four, the missionary conducting the interview will refer you to the mission president to determine if you qualify for baptism.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I like what LM said -- you're OK in my book no matter what you decide to believe. One things for sure, I don't fully accept everything about the Church -- and much of it I accept as plausible and then move on. For example, do I know for a fact that JS had the first vision? Nope, but I have had some good feelings about it, and they were enough that I say I believe in the first vision when people ask me.

I look at the questions in the Temple Recommend or priesthood advancement interviews as questions about whether I believe, not whether I actually KNOW. If everyone had to actually know for sure, then we'd all be out on ear when it comes to TR recommend interviews.

Also, I accept some of the things that people have a hard time with -- like plural marriage, and the other things the Church did in the early days. I look more on the good it does for my family and my kids. Lots of great benefits there, that sustain me. The people are good, and whether the history is actually true or not, I've been surrounded by some really decent, honest, trustworthy, kind and inspiring people over the years because of my involvement in Church.

I'd like to modify a statement from Winston Churchill which describes how I feel:

"Mormonism is the worst form of religion out there, except for all the others".

I mean that as a complement in case anyone is wondering.

[Backroads]

I guess it depends on which teachings. There are actually very few hardcore doctrines that the church has... which, in my view, means there are many "churchy" things you can take or leave. To me, that's fine.

Get to the basics of the gospel that are sturdy and sure, not all the little theories and musings of church leaders that, while certainly nice, aren't necessarily doctrine.

I think it's those extra things that get people upset with the church.

[Vegemighty]

The main thing is I dont want to be a hypocrite and subscribe to a religion which denounces what I see as undeniable fact.

So there are some issues I have such as

1) I believe the LDS church maintains that the KLV is the most accurate translation and that the apostles actually wrote the gospels themselves. While most scholars would say that the KJV has several errors and deviations from the ancient greek texts. And that the Gospels were only ascribed to different apostles after they were written.

2) I know as a fact that evolution is how God did the creation. So I believe that Genesis and Noah are just teachable stories, possibly true ones which have been grossly exaggerated over time.

3) There are some parts of the bible and BoM which would have to be exagerrated if I am to believe in them. Such as Solomons 1000 wives or the scale and scope of the civilizations in the book of mormon.

4) This is probably the most controversial one. I think that gays should have the same right to marry as straight people, as long as they also follow the same rules of chastity. Back in Pauls day the only homosexual acts going on were between prostitutes and pagan cults. So back then it would have made sense to condemn it. Jesus also said that a man should marry if he cant control his desires. So why have gays breaking the law of chastity simply because they can't marry? I say its better that they be righteous married and gay, than gay and sinful and full of doubts of a God which forbids them of loving someone. I think Jesus would be in favor of this.

[slamjet]

1) Article of Faith #8 - We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. While the gospels very well may have been written by the apostles, the Church understands that there have been a lot of translating and changes from the original text.

2) How can you know that as a fact unless you are God yourself? Evolution is still theory, thus, "The Theory of Evolution." To look at it any other way takes it out of the scientific realm and makes it a philosophy.

3) Can't say much about the Bible other than there are circumstantial evidences for much of it that may lend it credence as to it truthfulness. The Book of Mormon and civilization; there is evidence popping up about it's scale in the Americas. But remember that there were some awful wiping out of peoples in the end leaving only those who lived a base lifestyle. So it's not surprising that there's not a whole lot.

4) Jesus is in favor of us living the Laws of God as revealed through his Prophets. This last conference, Elder Ballard stated that just because it's legal doesn't make it right. There are homosexual faithful members of the church. It is allowed. What is not allowed is the acting out of those desires.

I don't go much further than this. I'm not out to convince a person about this Church. If you really want to know, research it. Go to LDS.org and do a site search. If a person is not willing to do the searching on their own, and will wait for someone else to hand it to them, then what does that profit him? Search, Read, and ask that person whom we profess to be at the head of our church, Jesus Christ, through prayer. And if you are sincere in your question, truly wanting an answer, you'll get it.

[Dravin]

1) I believe the LDS church maintains that the KLV is the most accurate translation and that the apostles actually wrote the gospels themselves.

I've never heard the claim from the Church (though you certainly hear it from the members plenty often) as a doctrine that the KJV is the most accurate translation (The Joseph Smith Translation suggests that Joseph Smith at least saw it as having flaws). It could be I'm just ignorant, but as far as I know it just isn't doctrinal position.

As far as the gospels having been written by the apostles themselves, there is certainly the assumption. As a personal matter I don't have any issue with the idea that the the Bible isn't the direct scribing from the apostles or anything like that. And there are plenty of faithful LDS who do subscribe to the scholarly view about genuine authorship, though it is probably the minority.

2) I know as a fact that evolution is how God did the creation. So I believe that Genesis and Noah are just teachable stories, possibly true ones which have been grossly exaggerated over time.

The Church has not mandated in an official capacity that evolution cannot be believed by faithful members. That's actually a point of debate, just go do a search for several of the past evolution threads. You find believing members on both sides of the debate.

3) There are some parts of the bible and BoM which would have to be exagerrated if I am to believe in them. Such as Solomons 1000 wives or the scale and scope of the civilizations in the book of mormon.

Actually the official student guide for the Old Testament warns that OT numbers are problematic and probably not accurate. As far as the scope of the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations I don't think there is a doctrinal position on that, though certainly plenty of speculation. Certainly earlier ideas about the scope of civilization pegged it as larger.

4) This is probably the most controversial one. I think that gays should have the same right to marry as straight people, as long as they also follow the same rules of chastity. Back in Pauls day the only homosexual acts going on were between prostitutes and pagan cults. So back then it would have made sense to condemn it. Jesus also said that a man should marry if he cant control his desires. So why have gays breaking the law of chastity simply because they can't marry? I say its better that they be righteous married and gay, than gay and sinful and full of doubts of a God which forbids them of loving someone. I think Jesus would be in favor of this.

Now you are actually having a doctrinal disagreement (from my position). I say pray about it. This was something I struggled with when I reactivated honestly.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Dravin

[Vegemighty]

Kind of getting off topic here, but why do you think there seems to be so much anti-intellectualness among this church and others? I mean, I personally find that studying things just increases my faith. Like I learned the other day that the reason the gospel of John plays up the hostility of the jews towards jesus is that it was the last gospel written and thus had to address the climate of the roman backlash of the jewish revolt. And if we thought the bible said something for fact, and leading scientists say that that is factually inaccurate, I dont write off the scientists or the bible. I accept that the science is right and that the message of the bible still remains the same and that God must have wanted the people of that time to think of the world being created in a certain way, but now there shouldnt be any debate about the evolution of man or the creation of the world.

For example, as a young boy, I thought for years that the word facade was pronounced fake-aid. One day, I realized I've been pronouncing it wrong. It didnt change the meaning of the word, the word was still the same, but I knew better.

[Tantalus]

This topic reminds me of a stand-up I've seen. People nowadays seem to make their own religion. By this I mean they accept the majority of what they are taught, but they will not accept certain things. Usually things that directly effect their lives, which begs the question. How devote does one need to be to receive the gift of immortality/heaven? Does the Lord make exceptions of what the bible preaches?

[FunkyTown]

This topic reminds me of a stand-up I've seen. People nowadays seem to make their own religion. By this I mean they accept the majority of what they are taught, but they will not accept certain things. Usually things that directly effect their lives, which begs the question. How devote does one need to be to receive the gift of immortality/heaven? Does the Lord make exceptions of what the bible preaches?

Well, being that he inspired it to be written? Chances are no.

[Backroads]

Kind of getting off topic here, but why do you think there seems to be so much anti-intellectualness among this church and others? I mean, I personally find that studying things just increases my faith. Like I learned the other day that the reason the gospel of John plays up the hostility of the jews towards jesus is that it was the last gospel written and thus had to address the climate of the roman backlash of the jewish revolt. And if we thought the bible said something for fact, and leading scientists say that that is factually inaccurate, I dont write off the scientists or the bible. I accept that the science is right and that the message of the bible still remains the same and that God must have wanted the people of that time to think of the world being created in a certain way, but now there shouldnt be any debate about the evolution of man or the creation of the world.

For example, as a young boy, I thought for years that the word facade was pronounced fake-aid. One day, I realized I've been pronouncing it wrong. It didnt change the meaning of the word, the word was still the same, but I knew better.

Excellent.

Science and religion: are they not both the pursuit of truth? Will they not in the end wind up as the same?

We are told to search, ponder, and pray. I don't think we should be avoiding studying. I had a science teacher in jr. high... who was hard-core science and a devout Mormon (as well as a teacher who moved in mid-year and wound up cutting off all her long pretty hair in order to look older because she was a legal midgit and kept having these jr. boys asking her out in the hall not realizing she was a teacher, married, with a kid in kindergarten, but that's beside the point) who told me, during a conversation with me and a couple of friends after class, that the more she studied science, the more it increased her testimony.

[Backroads]

The main thing is I dont want to be a hypocrite and subscribe to a religion which denounces what I see as undeniable fact.

So there are some issues I have such as

1) I believe the LDS church maintains that the KLV is the most accurate translation and that the apostles actually wrote the gospels themselves. While most scholars would say that the KJV has several errors and deviations from the ancient greek texts. And that the Gospels were only ascribed to different apostles after they were written.

Out of pure curiosity, is there a current version out there that scholars say is significantly closer to the greek texts?

2) I know as a fact that evolution is how God did the creation. So I believe that Genesis and Noah are just teachable stories, possibly true ones which have been grossly exaggerated over time.

While I have trouble calling anything a fact (I wholeheartedly belive in evolution, I have trouble saying I know it as a fact; it's a rather unscientific thing to say) I don't see how Genesis (Garden of Eden, Noah, etc.) contradicts evolution. The stories are... very vague, not exactly a scientific treaty. God creating the world, for example? All it says is He made things. I believe it was through evolution, personally, but I don't see how those must be called teachable fables. More like summaries. Just my view.

3) There are some parts of the bible and BoM which would have to be exagerrated if I am to believe in them. Such as Solomons 1000 wives or the scale and scope of the civilizations in the book of mormon.

I won't say they couldn't be hyperboles (historians love to gussy themselves up), but from what I've seen of historical evidence (not just on those, just on historical things in general) both of those things are quite plausible, if we can judge by other civilizations.

4) This is probably the most controversial one. I think that gays should have the same right to marry as straight people, as long as they also follow the same rules of chastity. Back in Pauls day the only homosexual acts going on were between prostitutes and pagan cults. So back then it would have made sense to condemn it. Jesus also said that a man should marry if he cant control his desires. So why have gays breaking the law of chastity simply because they can't marry? I say its better that they be righteous married and gay, than gay and sinful and full of doubts of a God which forbids them of loving someone. I think Jesus would be in favor of this.

My view: I totally agree with you that gays should have the same right to marry, or at least be allowed some sort of legal contract. What I DO NOT agree with is the government telling private instituations like churches who they can and can't marry. Other wise, I agree.

[Vegemighty]

Random question: what do you think of praying for revelation? Like praying for a revelation to president monson for a solution for the gay members of the church.

Would that be improper?

[HiJolly]

Random question: what do you think of praying for revelation? Like praying for a revelation to president monson for a solution for the gay members of the church.

Would that be improper?

I think that would be entirely a good thing. Very proper.

HiJolly

[dahlia]

I've been reading around the board and in reading the 'books' thread, learned about 'Adam-ondi-ahman.'

Considering what we know about the first humans and that life most likely began in Africa, do current LDS believe that Adam and Eve lived in Missouri?

This isn't a question on evolution, it's a question on accepting teachings. The missionaries never said anything about this, so I'm wondering 1) they think it is problematic for converts and avoid it or 2) it's not a doctrine in which one must believe in order to be a good Mormon.

What is the current teaching on Adam-ondi-ahman and are all Mormons expected to accept it?

[beefche]

It's not core doctrine. The location of Adam-ondi-ahman is not a required knowledge for salvation. Missionaries are not going to talk about the peripheral things of the Gospel. They teach basic doctrines for salvation.

[rameumptom]

The main thing is I dont want to be a hypocrite and subscribe to a religion which denounces what I see as undeniable fact.

So there are some issues I have such as

1) I believe the LDS church maintains that the KLV is the most accurate translation and that the apostles actually wrote the gospels themselves. While most scholars would say that the KJV has several errors and deviations from the ancient greek texts. And that the Gospels were only ascribed to different apostles after they were written.

I think you mean the KJV (King James, not the King Lame version). We do not believe it to necessarily be the most accurate translation. We use it, because it was and is the most popular version used in English worldwide. According to the Articles of Faith, "we believe the Bible insofar as it is translated correctly." We agree that there are errors and deviations in it. But even with such problems, it is inspired and a wonderful gift of God. For us, it is not so important who wrote the books of the Bible, but whether they are inspired of God.

2) I know as a fact that evolution is how God did the creation. So I believe that Genesis and Noah are just teachable stories, possibly true ones which have been grossly exaggerated over time.

There are many faithful LDS members who also believe this. We do believe that Adam and Noah were historical beings, however we do not know what parts of the Creation and Flood are myth (in the scientific definition) or not.

3) There are some parts of the bible and BoM which would have to be exagerrated if I am to believe in them. Such as Solomons 1000 wives or the scale and scope of the civilizations in the book of mormon.

No problem there. I also am not certain Solomon had 1000 wives, as the nation of Israel probably could not provide him with that many wives, nor could he support them. The scope of civilizations within the BoM are actually possible IF one considers a local geographical model based upon a Mesoamerican model.

4) This is probably the most controversial one. I think that gays should have the same right to marry as straight people, as long as they also follow the same rules of chastity. Back in Pauls day the only homosexual acts going on were between prostitutes and pagan cults. So back then it would have made sense to condemn it. Jesus also said that a man should marry if he cant control his desires. So why have gays breaking the law of chastity simply because they can't marry? I say its better that they be righteous married and gay, than gay and sinful and full of doubts of a God which forbids them of loving someone. I think Jesus would be in favor of this.

This has to do with current understanding of revelation, both modern and ancient. In the premortal existence we were children of God. We are given the blessing of being married/sealed into the eternities, but have specifically been told that this is only between man and woman. If God ever reveals a different standard regarding this, then we will definitely change our outlook on it. That said, there are many members who believe that gays should have the right to marry, even if the Church never condones it, or allows such marriages in the temple. You can hold such a belief and be a faithful member.

[rameumptom]

Random question: what do you think of praying for revelation? Like praying for a revelation to president monson for a solution for the gay members of the church.

Would that be improper?

First, I would pray to see if Pres Monson is already on track in this thing.

Then, I would pray to see what the Lord's will is for me on this thing. It isn't a scientific issue as it is a religious issue.

Finally, I would then pray according to what the Lord has revealed to me.

[rameumptom]

Kind of getting off topic here, but why do you think there seems to be so much anti-intellectualness among this church and others? I mean, I personally find that studying things just increases my faith. Like I learned the other day that the reason the gospel of John plays up the hostility of the jews towards jesus is that it was the last gospel written and thus had to address the climate of the roman backlash of the jewish revolt. And if we thought the bible said something for fact, and leading scientists say that that is factually inaccurate, I dont write off the scientists or the bible. I accept that the science is right and that the message of the bible still remains the same and that God must have wanted the people of that time to think of the world being created in a certain way, but now there shouldnt be any debate about the evolution of man or the creation of the world.

For example, as a young boy, I thought for years that the word facade was pronounced fake-aid. One day, I realized I've been pronouncing it wrong. It didnt change the meaning of the word, the word was still the same, but I knew better.

You would be surprised to find the number of LDS who are not anti-intellectual. Many of us deeply study all aspects and often keep our options open as to what is correct. I believe the science is as correct as we interpret the evidence correctly. I also believe religion is as correct as we interpret it correctly. Since we only have pieces of the scientific record and the religious record, we often make huge leaps of faith in our claims regarding both. Evolution is a fact. It can be proven. Whether man evolved from the primeval slime is something we cannot prove, just speculate and theorize over. Whether the events noted in John that are anti-Jewish are due to later writers or influenced by John himself, we do not know, but can only guess.

[HiJolly]

I've been reading around the board and in reading the 'books' thread, learned about 'Adam-ondi-ahman.'

Considering what we know about the first humans and that life most likely began in Africa, do current LDS believe that Adam and Eve lived in Missouri?

In my experience, yes.

This isn't a question on evolution, it's a question on accepting teachings. The missionaries never said anything about this, so I'm wondering 1) they think it is problematic for converts and avoid it or 2) it's not a doctrine in which one must believe in order to be a good Mormon.

As has been said, it is not central to our faith. But it is scripture, so we can't deny it was said. I prefer to look at it as symbolic.

What is the current teaching on Adam-ondi-ahman and are all Mormons expected to accept it?

From a man/woman-on-the-street view, yes, everyone pretty much just expects every other LDS to believe it. I'm ambivalent. Doesn't really matter to me much whether it's literal or symbolic or a parable or whatever. Some people *really* care about those things. I try to keep them happy.

HiJolly

Edited December 24, 2010 by HiJolly
spelling

[HiJolly]

You would be surprised to find the number of LDS who are not anti-intellectual. Many of us deeply study all aspects and often keep our options open as to what is correct. I believe the science is as correct as we interpret the evidence correctly. I also believe religion is as correct as we interpret it correctly. Since we only have pieces of the scientific record and the religious record, we often make huge leaps of faith in our claims regarding both. Evolution is a fact. It can be proven. Whether man evolved from the primeval slime is something we cannot prove, just speculate and theorize over. Whether the events noted in John that are anti-Jewish are due to later writers or influenced by John himself, we do not know, but can only guess.

I agree. In my family, there's only one other that is really educated on the scriptures, religion and science. We smile to each other a lot. Other than that, my family is all very fundamentalistic (literalistic) in their beliefs. That's one reason I spend time on the discussion boards.

HiJolly

[Backroads]

It's not core doctrine. The location of Adam-ondi-ahman is not a required knowledge for salvation. Missionaries are not going to talk about the peripheral things of the Gospel. They teach basic doctrines for salvation.

And this is not a cop-out answer. I don't think there is any hardcore declaration on this. Why should prophets be praying to know exactly where Adam and Eve were when they are so many more important things to worry about? I think there's a lot of speculation and even a bit of revelation on this, but I don't think anything is set in eternal stone. It's just not that important.