questions about doctrinal differences.

[dirtydevil]

I am a non-mormon doing research on LDS doctrine, and I had discovered that there seems like to me that there might be doctrinal differences in opinion that I am trying to shift through for clarification. Two examples I had discovered was that some LDS people believe in literally becoming just like God after they die if they are worthy, and creating many world's with many mortal children in them, but some others are denying this, while others simply say that they don't know the answer, do not need to know it, and are not concerned because it doesn't change the way they live their life. Also, I have a friend and neighbor who is a bishop. We had recently gone on a hunting trip together. He is a really great guy, and admirably honest friend. I spoke to him privately about the Book of Mormon historicity. He told me that he feels inside that the book of mormon is some kind of divinely inspired fiction full of moral teachings from God, I was curious about this, so I looked online, and there were other latter-day saints that shared this view. So my questions are:

Is there an official stance on these two subjects, and if so what are they?

Or is there no official stance, leaving it up to the members to decide what they feel good about?

Are there other common differences of beliefs, and what are those differences?

If there is an official stance, is there an official source that I can read on what the latter-day saint church teaches that will clarify truth among different scriptural interpretations?

And if a latter-day saint's interpretation differs from that of official teachings, is there a line drawn across which it would affect their membership status in the LDS church? If so, where is that line drawn?

[Guest]

The Book of Mormon is a literal history of the people on the American continent, including their account of Jesus' ministry to them. Your friend is just plain wrong, and I'm surprised that he holds that opinion. I wonder if he does so openly as a bishop. There's no doubt about the church stance there.

As far as the issue of whether we will be gods, that one is a little more fuzzy because everyone seems to have a different definition of what that means. What we do know is that our Heavenly Father is our God and always will be, and He offers us all that He has. We are capable of inheriting everything.

The most important and basic tenets of our religion are simple. It's when people venture out into fringe doctrine that things get seemingly messy. The Internet has made this worse, I think. People read and accept so many loose interpretations of things they read, whether it's from an "expert" or an opinion from a random church leader or what. Lots of cafeteria Mormonism. But if we stick to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the saving ordinances we believe in through the priesthood power God has restored to the Earth, and the truthfulness of the Scriptures, it's not all that complicated. People like their hobby horses though.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hi Dirtydevil -

In any large organization you will find individuals - even relatively highly placed ones - who do not toe the party line on one issue or another. Mormonism is not exempt from this trend.

With regard to historicity of the Book of Mormon, the problem you run into if you try to accept the book as "divine fiction" is that the book itself represents itself as a historical record. The introduction to the edition of the Book of Mormon currently produced by the Church presents it as such (see here). Joseph Smith represented it as such. He claimed it was a transcription of a record engraved on plates of gold. At least eleven other men and at least three women adamantly attested that those plates really existed. Smith claimed to have met with resurrected characters who appear in the Book of Mormon. I don't pretend to the level of sophistication espoused by our church's more liberal wing, but it strikes me that either the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be in toto or Smith was a liar.

As for whether humans can become Gods - Smith undeniably taught it. Mormons are not bound to take every word that ever came out of Smith's mouth literally and at face value. In fact, we aren't even bound to believe that every single thing he ever taught was absolutely correct. However, we do consider ourselves bound by scriptures, which (for us) include a book called the Doctrine and Covenants. The most applicable portions for the current discussions are Doctrine and Covenants 76:50-70 and Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20. We can - and, in fact, do - quibble endlessly about exactly what that entails.

[Vort]

Is there an official stance on these two subjects, and if so what are they?

• The Book of Mormon is historical fact, not fiction. The bishop may believe whatever he wants, but if he thinks the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, he believes something contrary to the Church's specific teachings.
• We will receive all that the Father has. We will see him as he is, for we will be like him. This is Biblical doctrine, not just LDS, however much supposedly "Bible-believing Christians" want to deny it. This, too, is indisputable doctrine of the Church. What it means is up for interpretation, I suppose, but the doctrine itself is inescapable. Those "other latter-day-saints [sic]", like your bishop friend, are free to believe whatever they want, but if they disbelieve this doctrine they are out of harmony with the clear teachings of the Church.

Are there other common differences of beliefs, and what are those differences?

Every doctrine of the Church has a subset of Latter-day Saints who disbelieve it, sometimes explicitly, sometimes just implicitly, sometimes vocally. We are a Church filled with imperfect individuals, some of whom actually take delight in taking anti-orthodox positions because of the enjoyment they get from being different.

If there is an official stance, is there an official source that I can read on what the latter-day saint church teaches that will clarify truth among different scriptural interpretations?

The current teachings and practices of the Church define its doctrine.

And if a latter-day saint's interpretation differs from that of official teachings, is there a line drawn across which it would affect their membership status in the LDS church? If so, where is that line drawn?

I know of no beliefs that would get a person excommunicated or otherwise disciplined.

Acting on said beliefs is a different matter, of course. No matter how fervently a member may believe that he should live polygamy/defraud his company/kill Republicans/set fire to government housing projects, such activities, if identified, will surely affect his membership status (not to mention his ability not to sit in jail).

Also, if you are LDS and you want to attend the temple, there are indeed certain minimal beliefs you are expected to hold, in addition to practices you are expected to do. The list of required beliefs is actually quite minimal, and includes things such as:

• Do you believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost?
• Do you believe the President of the Church (currently Thomas S. Monson) is the only man who holds and exercises all the keys of the Priesthood today?
• Do you sustain your leaders, both local and general?
• Do you affiliate, support, or sympathize with anti-Mormon groups? [The answer to this one is expected to be "no".]

But you can be a full and active member of the Church without holding a temple recommend.

[pam]

I must admit that a red flag hit me with your statement that a Bishop said that the Book of Mormon is a fiction of moral teachings.

[Connie]

Your bishop friend should give An Approach to The Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley a read if he doubts that it's a historical record.

[Magen_Avot]

JAG and the others represented well the official doctrine. I would add a couple of other scriptures, not that I'm much of a scriptorium:

Psalms 82:6

John 10:34

I was recently ordained to the office of High Priest and was asked if I believe that this is the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, I was also asked about my belief of the Book of Mormon, Perl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants. I answered in the affirmative because I do believe without doubt.

I don't know what questions a perspective Bishop is asked, but it does seem like a double standard for someone who is expected to uphold beliefs and standards. But even the Apostle Thomas doubted. (we hue-mons are a complicated lot ). But the individual choices and path to Christ belong to your friend. We all hinder our own progression and strive more or (and sometimes a lot) less to find the Savior. So I resist making a judgement, because all too often I fail to respond better or take action when I should. I need forgiveness too.

I guess you see that even though we are all in different places, off and on the path that leads to the Savior, there are many who join together under one roof to worship God our Father in the name of Christ and we all need forgiveness and a chance to seek it via the Lord of Hosts in the time of our habitation on this earth,... well, until it's everlastingly too late.

I'm sure there is someone for every single doctrine who is in disagreement, in doubt or replaces it with their own, but isn't that true of every religion?

How about you? How can we bless your journey more?

Edited January 13, 2013 by Magen_Avot