Dealing With False Doctrine

[Guest]

Recently, our Sunday School teacher repeated the common belief that Jesus was born on April 6th, 1B.C.  Yes, he specifically mentioned the year.  I was willing to let that slide and not say anything simply because of the prevalence of the belief and it is fairly harmless.  The prevalence of which is so common several GAs have repeated it in Gen. Conf.  So, besides, who knows?  It could be true after all.

Then he went on to say,"And it was also the date of the resurrection."

Again, out of politeness, I chose not to say anything.  I suppose this idea that it was the date of the resurrection is harmless enough.  Again, who knows?  It could be true after all.  

But it rubs me more than the first statement.  First, I have not heard it very often (I believe this to be the third person I've heard it from).  And I have never heard any source from which that belief sprang.  The first two were in my younger years from people who didn't really know a lot.  But they had heard this and was more of a question than a statement,"So, isn't that also the date of the resurrection?  That's what I heard."  But this Sunday School teacher is an older High Priest who a lot of people look up to.  And for him to just be repeating rumor -- not in the hallway in a private discussion, but in Sunday School as the instructor -- just doesn't seem right.

So, part of me is wondering how these things creep up in common belief.  Another part is wondering when we're supposed to say anything.  Just how bad would something have to be for you to stand up and say, "That's not right"?

[person0]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, part of me is wondering how these things creep up in common belief.  Another part is wondering when we're supposed to say anything.  Just how bad would something have to be for you to stand up and say, "That's not right"?

Quote

 But behold, the Jews . . . sought for things that they could not understand.
(Jacob 4:14)

I think we have some members that do this as well.  And general ignorance is propagated especially when something is appealing, or when most people don't feel the need or desire to study it or verify it.

In terms of when to actually correct someone.  I correct people anytime that they say something that I am certain is incorrect, if I feel it is important for the general membership to have the corrected information.  For example, I might not have said anything in either of those situations either, however, if that person said something like, ". . . see here we have proof that the Book of Mormon is true . . .", or ". . . since Joseph Smith revealed the date of Christ's birth we have that as a further witness he is a true prophet of God", at that point I would raise my hand to clarify that regardless of what evidence we feel strengthens our personal conviction of the truthfulness of the restored gospel, the Holy Spirit is what will bear witness of the truth, and any temporal evidence is of less importance as someone else might find justification to dismiss it.  In a semi-recent real life experience, I corrected someone when they claimed that they did not believe we can be sure that we will make it to the celestial kingdom.  I responded by saying that I know I will make it if I die today because I am temple worthy and strive to live the commandments.

I usually only end up correcting someone if they share something that will lead others to believe something that could reasonably lead them to an incorrect application of gospel principles, or if it is something that is so clearly speculative it could negatively impact an investigator.

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, part of me is wondering how these things creep up in common belief.  Another part is wondering when we're supposed to say anything.  Just how bad would something have to be for you to stand up and say, "That's not right"?

I'm not sure if such things qualify as "false doctrine" as they re not leading anyone astray from the covenants. Such ideas have many means of coming about and taking root in a mind, a family, a community/culture/etc. I think we are supposed to say something about it when prompted, or at least accompanied, by the Spirit. Charity and preserving the covenant should be our aim. In this instance, I would tend to mention something to the Sunday School President and go from there (teachers should stick to the manual and the objectives of the lesson, and not share this kind of information). I would not judge my involvement on how bad something has to be, but on how necessary and edifying my correction would be for all involved at the moment. How (and when, and why) we correct is often more crucial than what we correct.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, person0 said:

I usually only end up correcting someone if they share something that will lead others to believe something that could reasonably lead them to an incorrect application of gospel principles, or if it is something that is so clearly speculative it could negatively impact an investigator.

I can appreciate that.  But it is often difficult to see where that will be.  Date of resurrection -- completely unimportant our salvation.

But what about the belief in evolution or not?  I don't know where you stand on it, but the official position of the Church is that we have no official position.  But people will tout their own beliefs, not as a personal interpretation, but as the doctrine of the Church.

What about progression between kingdoms.  We've had that debate here on this forum just recently.  I was surprised to find that there was no officially declared position on it -- just LOTS of GA interpretations of scriptures.

These two can lead people down a path of getting really messed up.

[person0]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I can appreciate that.  But it is often difficult to see where that will be.  Date of resurrection -- completely unimportant our salvation.

But what about the belief in evolution or not?  I don't know where you stand on it, but the official position of the Church is that we have no official position.  But people will tout their own beliefs, not as a personal interpretation, but as the doctrine of the Church.

What about progression between kingdoms.  We've had that debate here on this forum just recently.  I was surprised to find that there was no officially declared position on it -- just LOTS of GA interpretations of scriptures.

These two can lead people down a path of getting really messed up.

In both of the examples you mentioned, focusing on those things could mess people up, as a result, I would make it very clear that what the individual is stating is speculative at best and that there are members of the church on both sides of the isle.  Also, if there is any related fragment of an official Church position, I will relate that.  Additionally, from a previous thread, if you recall, it appears that you and I are in agreement in regards evolution.

[yjacket]

34 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But what about the belief in evolution or not?  I don't know where you stand on it, but the official position of the Church is that we have no official position.  

Not so.  It was answered a long time ago, people just refuse to see it.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

Personally, I do not believe in evolution. . .it is a construct it hasn't been proven and it can't be proven-it relies upon faith . . .faith in the philosophy and theories of men.

I put my faith in God not in the words or theories of men. God has revealed as much that needs to be known about the Creation; if more needs to be known he will reveal it-to prophets not to men.

As for the other stuff . . .I'm not sure it is really that big of a deal at all. It's a nice thing to say, but we don't know for certain . .. but then again if Sunday School was just about saying what was 100% known then all we would do is read exactly from the scriptures, exactly from the manuals and no one would ever comment.

If you feel the need to say something-the proper thing to do is to approach the teacher after class and discuss it with them in private rather than publicly doing it.  Only in rare instances, where something is obviously incorrect and could lead someone to have a doctrinal idea contrary to the Gospel should one correct.

 

Edited April 27, 2017 by yjacket

[Traveler]

@Carborendum

Anciently calendars were considered part of divine revelation.  But this was also an era where science and religion were thought to be more integrated.   For example, Zechariah (Father of John the Baptist) was serving at the temple as per a revealed calendar designating the day of his service.

By revelation we understand that the church was to be restored on April 6^th 1830 (a date of Passover).  This date was by divine decree.   Some believe this particular date was set and fixed by G-d as part of his general plan – in other words it was fixed in time before the fall of Adam.  In consequence of the importance of this date there are some that believe Jesus was both born when April 6^th fell upon the Passover date (according to the ancient calendars).  And that again Jesus was resurrected according to the same pattern a set in the doctrine of the “Passover”. 

I would be very careful in saying that there should be no connection to April 6 as a special time when it falls on the Sunday of Passover and deliverance.  Unless you have access to something that allows you to know for sure this is not important.

As a side note – As an amateur student of ancient and modern calendars – I do not have a great deal of faith in our current Gregorian Calendar.  I believe our current year is flawed and does not correctly reflect when Christ was born.   I also am not sure we really understand that much concerning the ancient calendars – especially the Enoch Calendar that seem to be what Jesus and his apostles were using.

 

The Traveler

 

[Maureen]

24 minutes ago, Traveler said:

...By revelation we understand that the church was to be restored on April 6^th 1830 (a date of Passover).  This date was by divine decree.   Some believe this particular date was set and fixed by G-d as part of his general plan – in other words it was fixed in time before the fall of Adam.  In consequence of the importance of this date there are some that believe Jesus was both born when April 6^th fell upon the Passover date (according to the ancient calendars).  And that again Jesus was resurrected according to the same pattern a set in the doctrine of the “Passover”...

In the Happy Birthday Jesus thread JAG mentioned that on one online Hebrew calendar April 8th was the day of Passover. The night before would be Passover evening (Eve), so wouldn't that make April 6th Passover Eve Eve. Kind of similar to Christmas Eve Eve (December 23rd). Oh wait, isn't that someone's birthday?

Speculating about how important dates are can be interesting and fun, but it's still just speculation.

M.

[Sunday21]

I think that if students were to interrupt a lesson to correct the teacher about something like the birth of Christ, which is unlikely to be the focus of the lesson, such an interruption would be likely to derail the clsss, cause many to lose the spirit of reverence and make it difficult to pursue the object of the lesson. Why not email the teacher with your objection? 

If the teacher is not an email person then they are likely on death's door and you can safely count on lecturing surviving family members at their funeral sometime next week. 

Edited April 27, 2017 by Sunday21

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Recently, our Sunday School teacher repeated the common belief that Jesus was born on April 6th, 1B.C.  Yes, he specifically mentioned the year.  I was willing to let that slide and not say anything simply because of the prevalence of the belief and it is fairly harmless.  The prevalence of which is so common several GAs have repeated it in Gen. Conf.  So, besides, who knows?  It could be true after all.

Then he went on to say,"And it was also the date of the resurrection."

Again, out of politeness, I chose not to say anything.  I suppose this idea that it was the date of the resurrection is harmless enough.  Again, who knows?  It could be true after all.  

But it rubs me more than the first statement.  First, I have not heard it very often (I believe this to be the third person I've heard it from).  And I have never heard any source from which that belief sprang.  The first two were in my younger years from people who didn't really know a lot.  But they had heard this and was more of a question than a statement,"So, isn't that also the date of the resurrection?  That's what I heard."  But this Sunday School teacher is an older High Priest who a lot of people look up to.  And for him to just be repeating rumor -- not in the hallway in a private discussion, but in Sunday School as the instructor -- just doesn't seem right.

So, part of me is wondering how these things creep up in common belief.  Another part is wondering when we're supposed to say anything.  Just how bad would something have to be for you to stand up and say, "That's not right"?

Where's the harm in the statements/beliefs? That would be my deciding factor in saying something or not. (Well, one of them.) If it's a harmful belief there seems to be a greater need for correction.

[wenglund]

If I understand the First Vision correctly, the Father and Son were less concerned with possible false doctrines, and more concerned with creedalism (doctrinal dogmatism); They referred to the latter as an abomination.

Does this apply to the dates of Christ's birth and resurrection? I will let each to decide for themselves.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

If I understand the First Vision correctly, the Father and Son were less concerned with possible false doctrines, and more concerned with creedalism (doctrinal dogmatism); They referred to the latter as an abomination.

The First Vision is hardly the only source we have of God's views of false doctrines and His concerns with them however, wouldn't you say?

[wenglund]

20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The First Vision is hardly the only source we have of God's views of false doctrines and His concerns with them however, wouldn't you say?

Yes. It wasn't the sole treatise. But, it also was the declaration that helped usher in the last dispensation. I find that significant and meaningful. Others are free to see it otherwise.

My intent wasn't to become dogmatic about creedal or doctrinal dogmatism, but to humbly offer thoughts for helpful consideration.l If people are getting worked up over the proposed date of Christ's birth and resurrection, I wish to offer them a way to gain peace and "chill out" as the kids say these days.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

Not so.  It was answered a long time ago, people just refuse to see it.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

 

I read through the article, and it appears to me that the Church is upholding God's creation of man. Further, there is a real dialing down on the LDS distinctive that humanity's creation in God's image is literal--that the Father is composed of a body of flesh.  Does any of this make Evolution impossible?  Militant atheist-scientist, who would pretend to be able to determine whether Evolution began by chance and random selection vs. by the design of God--these would clearly be dismissed by the early church leaders, as well as by nearly all Christian leaders, past and present. However, what of "theistic evolution?"  What of "old earth creationism?"  Would not a speaker at an LDS teaching event, who declared that the church espoused the literal, step by step, Geneses 1 account of creation, and that it happened 6,000 years ago have crossed a rather significant line away from official truth into personal interpretation?

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I read through the article, and it appears to me that the Church is upholding God's creation of man. Further, there is a real dialing down on the LDS distinctive that humanity's creation in God's image is literal--that the Father is composed of a body of flesh.  Does any of this make Evolution impossible?  Militant atheist-scientist, who would pretend to be able to determine whether Evolution began by chance and random selection vs. by the design of God--these would clearly be dismissed by the early church leaders, as well as by nearly all Christian leaders, past and present. However, what of "theistic evolution?"  What of "old earth creationism?"  Would not a speaker at an LDS teaching event, who declared that the church espoused the literal, step by step, Geneses 1 account of creation, and that it happened 6,000 years ago have crossed a rather significant line away from official truth into personal interpretation?

Yes, he would, just as several on this board have done.

That we have differing interpretations is fine.  Without official declarations, we will have them. But we need to be very careful about what we are saying is "true doctrine" when even the Leaders of the Church are saying "we don't know."  Even Joseph F. Smith was adamantly condemnatory of evolutionary theory as an apostle.  But when he became the Prophet, he was very careful to ever say another declaration about it other than "we don't know.  Here's what we do know."  And he very clearly stated it.

This idea is very important regardless of the topic.  When people state something, have they taken the time to recognize how the exact same words they cite can also be used to support the opposing point of view?  Most of the time they haven't.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

51 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I read through the article, and it appears to me that the Church is upholding God's creation of man. Further, there is a real dialing down on the LDS distinctive that humanity's creation in God's image is literal--that the Father is composed of a body of flesh.  Does any of this make Evolution impossible?  Militant atheist-scientist, who would pretend to be able to determine whether Evolution began by chance and random selection vs. by the design of God--these would clearly be dismissed by the early church leaders, as well as by nearly all Christian leaders, past and present. However, what of "theistic evolution?"  What of "old earth creationism?"  Would not a speaker at an LDS teaching event, who declared that the church espoused the literal, step by step, Geneses 1 account of creation, and that it happened 6,000 years ago have crossed a rather significant line away from official truth into personal interpretation?

One thing we cant dispute is the fact that our doctrine does teach that all of life, this planet and others in the iniverse are the direct result of the Creator and his designs and not just the random act of nature and chemistry.

[Traveler]

@The Folk Prophet@prisonchaplain@Rob Osbornand others

How does G-d create a human being?  In case anyone missed out on the sex education classes – currently man begins as a zygote in a mother’s womb.  That single cell creature will “EVOLVE” into an infant child by times of its birth.  That infant child will evolve into an adult and will age – then die.  All of this is a process of “EVOLUTION”.  Those that claim evolution has nothing to do with things G-d creates – either are ignorant of creation or ignorant of what evolution entails.

If the first man Adam was created by a different process – I am unware of any revelation that even hints at such a claim.  The scriptures explicitly say that G-d create man (not just Adam).  Unless for the last 6,000 years all of mankind was not created by G-d we must assume that G-d creates by evolution maybe even exclusively by evolution.  If there is any other means or ways of creating life – I would be most interested in where and how someone discovered such “other” creation.

 

The Traveler

[NightSG]

37 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

One thing we cant dispute is the fact that our doctrine does teach that all of life, this planet and others in the iniverse are the direct result of the Creator and his designs and not just the random act of nature and chemistry.

But we need to be careful with that teaching.  Lots of people won't feel too indebted to the creator of mosquitoes.

[prisonchaplain]

@Traveler Even within the Young Earth Creationist movement, and certainly with the broader Intelligent Design one, micro-evolution is not even a controversy. It's undeniable.  The questions surround the idea of whether or not one species can evolve into an entirely different species. I believe this is called macro-evolution--and this is where all the differing perspectives seem to start.

[wenglund]

40 minutes ago, Traveler said:

@The Folk Prophet@prisonchaplain@Rob Osbornand others

How does G-d create a human being?  In case anyone missed out on the sex education classes – currently man begins as a zygote in a mother’s womb.  That single cell creature will “EVOLVE” into an infant child by times of its birth.  That infant child will evolve into an adult and will age – then die.  All of this is a process of “EVOLUTION”.  Those that claim evolution has nothing to do with things G-d creates – either are ignorant of creation or ignorant of what evolution entails.

Likewise, how does God create other Gods? The plan of progression is essentially the means by which the spirit children of the Father evolve to perfected resurrected beings even as he is.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

26 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Traveler Even within the Young Earth Creationist movement, and certainly with the broader Intelligent Design one, micro-evolution is not even a controversy. It's undeniable.  The questions surround the idea of whether or not one species can evolve into an entirely different species. I believe this is called macro-evolution--and this is where all the differing perspectives seem to start.

 

Without question G-d is able to create different species.  Since almost 99% of all species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct and year by year we lose additional species – we are left to wonder and speculate if G-d created all the species before creating man.  The variety of species that currently exist - since the flood would indicate that there is more going on than advertised by Creationists that reject evolution. 

I am glad you accept micro-evolution but here are a couple of thoughts.  The term Eve means “The mother of all living”.  In addition, in Genesis G-d creates various creatures and then; when he is “finished” he then commanded them to reproduce after their own kind.  If evolution (macro) only within a specific “kind” was possible why would such a command be given?  It would be a meaningless statement of foolish redundancy about something that was impossible in the first place – which is not very G-d like.  At least the G-d I am familiar with.

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Without question G-d is able to create different species.  Since almost 99% of all species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct and year by year we lose additional species – we are left to wonder and speculate if G-d created all the species before creating man.  The variety of species that currently exist - since the flood would indicate that there is more going on than advertised by Creationists that reject evolution. 

I am glad you accept micro-evolution but here are a couple of thoughts.  The term Eve means “The mother of all living”.  In addition, in Genesis G-d creates various creatures and then; when he is “finished” he then commanded them to reproduce after their own kind.  If evolution (macro) only within a specific “kind” was possible why would such a command be given?  It would be a meaningless statement of foolish redundancy about something that was impossible in the first place – which is not very G-d like.  At least the G-d I am familiar with.

 

The Traveler

The one exception to the divine command of "reproduce after their own kind," occurred between the Father and Mary, thereby opening the way to making man into a new creature, from corruption to incorruption, from natural to spiritual, from temporal to eternal. Through the offspring of the inter-species union, and the offspring's marriage to the Church, we may be born and raised up, or evolved, to become even as he is.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[prisonchaplain]

58 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 The term Eve means “The mother of all living”.  In addition, in Genesis G-d creates various creatures and then; when he is “finished” he then commanded them to reproduce after their own kind.  If evolution (macro) only within a specific “kind” was possible why would such a command be given?  It would be a meaningless statement of foolish redundancy about something that was impossible in the first place – which is not very G-d like.  At least the G-d I am familiar with.

 The Traveler

To turn this argument on its head, it could be argued that God commanded that macro-evolution not take place--that each creature was limited to procreating only "after its own kind." 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

Without question G-d is able to create different species.  Since almost 99% of all species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct and year by year we lose additional species – we are left to wonder and speculate if G-d created all the species before creating man.  The variety of species that currently exist - since the flood would indicate that there is more going on than advertised by Creationists that reject evolution. 

I am glad you accept micro-evolution but here are a couple of thoughts.  The term Eve means “The mother of all living”.  In addition, in Genesis G-d creates various creatures and then; when he is “finished” he then commanded them to reproduce after their own kind.  If evolution (macro) only within a specific “kind” was possible why would such a command be given?  It would be a meaningless statement of foolish redundancy about something that was impossible in the first place – which is not very G-d like.  At least the G-d I am familiar with.

 

The Traveler

I can see “all living” referring to Adam and Eve's physical/temporal posterity from a certain point in time throughout the seven dispensations; or to them as the adoptive parents of adopted posterity of any qualifying human being ("pre-Adamite" species of homo); or, to them as the chief king-and-queen stewards over all life and element on earth. I can even see their involvement in the organizing (the “naming” in Genesis:19-20) of all life on earth, as all genetic material is basically the same for every living thing, as also the elements involved in those materials. All life is basically spirit (from &C 93, "man is spirit," Jesus is Spirit, "the Father ...is Spirit," and even 'the wicked one") and for the second estate, element is connected to it (D&C 93:33), so from a spiritual perspective their parentage (adoptive and stewardship) could extend backward in time and beyond the veil of mortality (organizing things spiritually before physically, Moses 3:5) as well as forward (sealing back to Adam, D&C 128:18).

I can also see them as being the progenitors a particular genealogy that continued through Noah, but I think their role is actually more in line with the above, since they did live under at least two sets of reckonings. And if two, then why not in and out of many reckonings over thousands of years* (facilitated by translation, as are so many others who minister, and will minister, to this earth, D&C 130:4-5), sufficient to lead up to this last remaining 7,000-year period?

But it is just as effective, faith-wise, to believe the scriptural accounts in a literal fashion as long as we are fulfilling the will of Christ in the persons we become; no harm, no foul.

* Following the pattern in D&C 88's parable of the kingdoms, and allowing Adam to come back to earth many times in his role as father of a human race without having to be a resurrected and exalted being as the disavowed Adam-God theory puts forth. Of course this last 7,000 years would be the final time he did this.

[Guest]

So, the consensus seems to be: As long as it is a harmless doctrine, just let it go.  I suppose that is a good way to think about it.  And the dates of birth and resurrection are harmless enough, I suppose.  But sometimes I wonder how people get so excited about such things that aren't actually known.

What makes it worse is that this same teacher constantly does this sort of thing.  He just gets little things wrong all the time.  Inconsequential things. But he consistently gets things wrong.

He mentioned the other day that it took (X number of days) to translate the BoM.  I forget what number he used.  But it was wrong.  I challenged him on it citing the dates I was aware of with Emma and Oliver Cowdry.  Then he rebutted that others also acted as scribe.  He mentioned the 116 pages with Martin Harris.  I had to mention that the 116 pages were not in the BoM.  Then it just go all messed up from there.

No, I never meant that discussion to get out of control.  But it really gets me that he does this so much.  Yet, because it got out of control, I'm really reticent to bring anything up again.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Guest