Gospel Doctrine

[inthearmsofsleep]

In Church or outside, I have trouble occasionally learning new doctrine.

Members who are misinformed will often contribute what they believe is official doctrine, and some times it's just not. Per my ex-girlfriend, I found out that men in the Celestial Kingdom will have an average of seven wives each. Women are so much more naturally righteous that they will vastly outnumber men.

Now, this was taught in her Young Women's class. I, with some basic research, have not been able to find anything remotely suggesting this. I was quite sure it wasn't doctrine, but it caused an argument anyway.

As a new member, moments like these can be very frustrating. I've found out that unless Scripture is directly quoted, I can't be sure of what I'm learning. I have to go home and research it. (Not that Scripture searching is a bad thing.)

That being said: My Gospel Doctrine teacher is awesome. He likes to stick to the lesson, sometimes emphasizing certain aspects (especially when time is short.) People raise their hands to ask him questions or bring up points. He's generally prepared enough that he can answer.

When he's saying what HE believes, he'll make a comment such as "Now, this is the Gospel according to Brother E." It's nice when that distinction is given.

I don't want to get off-subject, but I heard something like that recently too, about plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom. Aside from it being "at least 7 wives each", is there any truth to it having to be practiced at all? It really bothered me when this girl told me about it, and she seemed kind of bothered by it too. I think she still is, but if there was no official truth to it then I (and she) could feel a lot better about it.

[VisionOfLehi]

There is a Scripture, but I don't know how to interpret it. (Meaning, I'm not sure of the official Church stance on it.)

Isaiah 4

2 Nephi 14

It just suggests to me that there might be some sort of plural marriage during the Millennial Reign. Nowhere do I find anything saying this is how it will be in the Celestial Kingdom.

[WillowTheWhisp]

i quoted hugh nibley once.

I said, "i like how hugh nibley said that 'we are here to learn to main things, to forgive and repent."

I was new to the ward, and i never should have said it. People think I am apostate now because of the gossip that had started. (later i found out from many that my eqp was spreading the rumors. We work together and i found out he didn't like me 'cos of the church rumors) He was telling people that I was a fringe member, and going apostate, was borderline abusive, and that I didn't read the scriptures any more. He counciled me that I should only read books by the apostles, and not quote hugh nibley. I apologized and am more careful now.

Honestly, i don't see anything wrong with saying that Jacob is poetic, but maybe i have lots more to learn.

The lies he spread did hurt me, I gotta admit. I learned lots though. I am more careful ...the last thing i want is to confuse a new member or weaken someone's testimony by something I have said. Maybe i needed a little trial like that to humble me enough to change.

This reminded me of something which happened to me and I must admit that I had to laugh because I found it hilarious.

I used to discuss gospel topics with a fairly new member on a regular weekly basis when we were both staffing a small Family History Centre. He was very keen and bought loads of books from the Latter-day Bookstore which is a privately owned shop but only stocks books by LDS authors.

He'd been thinking of buying a copy of the Joseph Smith translation but I told him that it really wasn't worth him spending all that money on as everything that was in it was already in the footnotes etc of his scriptures. However, he wasn't convinced so I said I would lend him the copy I bought years ago, before the new edition of the scriptures with all the footnotes.

The week after I loaned him the book he told me it had been confiscated by a member of his Bishopric!

The following Sunday the confiscator turned up at our chapel after Sacrament Meeting, marched into the chapel demanding to know the whereabouts of the heretical apostate who had been giving unauthorised literature to his ward members! The rest of our ward scattered to peripheral rooms!

I asked him what on earth he was on about because the book was the Joseph Smith translation so how could it be classed as unauthorised literature but before I could explain that it didn't contain anything that we didn't already have in the scriptures we used every day he was threatening me with excommunication and banishment to outer darkness. He said the church does not approve of RLDS publications and the book was an RLDS publication. Well of course it was. They had the original document.

I asked him to return my book to me. He refused. I told him the church didn't approve of theft and if he kept my book then he was a thief. That didn't go down too well. He said that if I wanted the book back it was up to me to collect it from his garage where he had put it "out of harm's way" - that was miles away and I had no transport as he well knew so I said it was up to him to return it to me as he had no right to take it in the first place.

People were peeping in through the chapel doors by now and my (late) husband had begun a heated argument with this brother - which he later apologised to our Bishop for having done in the chapel.

There was not a happy conclusion and so I approached the Stake President on the matter. I told him that I had loaned a book to a member of another ward, to which he said "Oh dear, and has he not given it back?" I replied that he couldn't give it back as a member of his Bishopric had confiscated it due to it being heretical. He looked at me horrified that I should be lending out heretical books and asked me what on earth it was. I told him it was the Joseph Smith translation to which he replied, "The black bound one with the gold lettering?" I confirmed that it was. "The one you bought in the bookshop down at the London Temple when I was in the queue behind you?" he continued. I confirmed that was indeed the book. "Goodness!" He exclaimed."I'd better go straight home and hide my copy in case he decides to confiscate that!"

The following week I was in the Family History Centre helping one of the members look something up when I heard footsteps on the stairs, then the office door opened. A voice said " T'book's on t'desk!" then the door slammed and the footsteps retreated down the stairs. I went into the office and there was my Joseph Smith translation. I think the SP may have had a word with him.

[HiJolly]

This reminded me of something which happened to me and I must admit that I had to laugh because I found it hilarious.

I used to discuss gospel topics with a fairly new member on a regular weekly basis when we were both staffing a small Family History Centre. He was very keen and bought loads of books from the Latter-day Bookstore which is a privately owned shop but only stocks books by LDS authors.

He'd been thinking of buying a copy of the Joseph Smith translation but I told him that it really wasn't worth him spending all that money on as everything that was in it was already in the footnotes etc of his scriptures. However, he wasn't convinced so I said I would lend him the copy I bought years ago, before the new edition of the scriptures with all the footnotes.

The week after I loaned him the book he told me it had been confiscated by a member of his Bishopric!

The following Sunday the confiscator turned up at our chapel after Sacrament Meeting, marched into the chapel demanding to know the whereabouts of the heretical apostate who had been giving unauthorised literature to his ward members! The rest of our ward scattered to peripheral rooms!

I asked him what on earth he was on about because the book was the Joseph Smith translation so how could it be classed as unauthorised literature but before I could explain that it didn't contain anything that we didn't already have in the scriptures we used every day he was threatening me with excommunication and banishment to outer darkness. He said the church does not approve of RLDS publications and the book was an RLDS publication. Well of course it was. They had the original document.

I asked him to return my book to me. He refused. I told him the church didn't approve of theft and if he kept my book then he was a thief. That didn't go down too well. He said that if I wanted the book back it was up to me to collect it from his garage where he had put it "out of harm's way" - that was miles away and I had no transport as he well knew so I said it was up to him to return it to me as he had no right to take it in the first place.

People were peeping in through the chapel doors by now and my (late) husband had begun a heated argument with this brother - which he later apologised to our Bishop for having done in the chapel.

There was not a happy conclusion and so I approached the Stake President on the matter. I told him that I had loaned a book to a member of another ward, to which he said "Oh dear, and has he not given it back?" I replied that he couldn't give it back as a member of his Bishopric had confiscated it due to it being heretical. He looked at me horrified that I should be lending out heretical books and asked me what on earth it was. I told him it was the Joseph Smith translation to which he replied, "The black bound one with the gold lettering?" I confirmed that it was. "The one you bought in the bookshop down at the London Temple when I was in the queue behind you?" he continued. I confirmed that was indeed the book. "Goodness!" He exclaimed."I'd better go straight home and hide my copy in case he decides to confiscate that!"

The following week I was in the Family History Centre helping one of the members look something up when I heard footsteps on the stairs, then the office door opened. A voice said " T'book's on t'desk!" then the door slammed and the footsteps retreated down the stairs. I went into the office and there was my Joseph Smith translation. I think the SP may have had a word with him.

Awesome story, though I know it had to be hard as it unfolded. Way to go.

HiJolly

[Guest Malcolm]

That was an awesome story Willow!! Good intentions are not enough, it must also be accounted for righteousness.

Vision: The Savior will reign during the Millennium so if he wants to institute plural marriage so be it. In the Celestial kingdom they are not married not given in marriage; and The Savior said that.

I just think is bizarre how people get bent totally out of shape by a rumor!! On a sad note, that speaks volumes about their testimony (or lack there of).

[Canuck Mormon]

This reminded me of something which happened to me and I must admit that I had to laugh because I found it hilarious.

I used to discuss gospel topics with a fairly new member on a regular weekly basis when we were both staffing a small Family History Centre. He was very keen and bought loads of books from the Latter-day Bookstore which is a privately owned shop but only stocks books by LDS authors.

He'd been thinking of buying a copy of the Joseph Smith translation but I told him that it really wasn't worth him spending all that money on as everything that was in it was already in the footnotes etc of his scriptures. However, he wasn't convinced so I said I would lend him the copy I bought years ago, before the new edition of the scriptures with all the footnotes.

The week after I loaned him the book he told me it had been confiscated by a member of his Bishopric!

The following Sunday the confiscator turned up at our chapel after Sacrament Meeting, marched into the chapel demanding to know the whereabouts of the heretical apostate who had been giving unauthorised literature to his ward members! The rest of our ward scattered to peripheral rooms!

I asked him what on earth he was on about because the book was the Joseph Smith translation so how could it be classed as unauthorised literature but before I could explain that it didn't contain anything that we didn't already have in the scriptures we used every day he was threatening me with excommunication and banishment to outer darkness. He said the church does not approve of RLDS publications and the book was an RLDS publication. Well of course it was. They had the original document.

I asked him to return my book to me. He refused. I told him the church didn't approve of theft and if he kept my book then he was a thief. That didn't go down too well. He said that if I wanted the book back it was up to me to collect it from his garage where he had put it "out of harm's way" - that was miles away and I had no transport as he well knew so I said it was up to him to return it to me as he had no right to take it in the first place.

People were peeping in through the chapel doors by now and my (late) husband had begun a heated argument with this brother - which he later apologised to our Bishop for having done in the chapel.

There was not a happy conclusion and so I approached the Stake President on the matter. I told him that I had loaned a book to a member of another ward, to which he said "Oh dear, and has he not given it back?" I replied that he couldn't give it back as a member of his Bishopric had confiscated it due to it being heretical. He looked at me horrified that I should be lending out heretical books and asked me what on earth it was. I told him it was the Joseph Smith translation to which he replied, "The black bound one with the gold lettering?" I confirmed that it was. "The one you bought in the bookshop down at the London Temple when I was in the queue behind you?" he continued. I confirmed that was indeed the book. "Goodness!" He exclaimed."I'd better go straight home and hide my copy in case he decides to confiscate that!"

The following week I was in the Family History Centre helping one of the members look something up when I heard footsteps on the stairs, then the office door opened. A voice said " T'book's on t'desk!" then the door slammed and the footsteps retreated down the stairs. I went into the office and there was my Joseph Smith translation. I think the SP may have had a word with him.

That's quite the story Willow. I would have charged him with theft anyway, but that's me.

[MorningStar]

Oh my gosh, Willow! That is insane! I guess I shouldn't laugh - I just can't imagine that. What nerve.

[TheMightyQuinn]

I've been "teaching" gospel doctrine for a year now. This was the one calling that I really didn't want (well, besides bishop!). It's quite a challenge for me for many reasons, but mostly due to the lack of class participation. The members just sit and stare!

Asking the questions from the manual (usually something like: "how do you feel about...", "How can we apply this...", etc) gets no response. I tried sharing what passages impressed me in the assigned reading and then ask other to share, but still no response.

I feel that 95% of the people don't do the reading, and they only have to read about a chapter a day to keep up! It's very frustrating.

I think that following the lessons in the manual strictly works well only if you're class participates in the discussion. Since they don't, I've been including material from Bill Beardall's site, which had really helped. I guess quoting how the latter-day prophets feel about the scriptures we're reading has supplanted class members sharing their feelings. I still has them what they think or feel, but when they don't respond, at least i have a backup!

[Moksha]

In my Gospel Doctrine class, twice last year someone has spoken disparagingly about the theory of evolution, like a pre-science approach is actual Church doctrine. When such issues arise, I wish we could deviate from the lesson plan enough to adequately address this issue. Otherwise it tends to promote superstition as being official doctrine.

[Still_Small_Voice]

I hope most of what has been shared in this thread isn't normal. We have very good classes in Sunday School and Priesthood in our ward.

[inthearmsofsleep]

I hope most of what has been shared in this thread isn't normal. We have very good classes in Sunday School and Priesthood in our ward.

Hahaha.... thank you, Still_Small_Voice. Your post lives up to your name. I hope this as well, because we have a great Gospel Doctrine class (though some people my age find it boring) and I have yet to see any big issues arise. I've heard of stuff like this happening in my ward, but I haven't experienced it.

[WillowTheWhisp]

It's quite a challenge for me for many reasons, but mostly due to the lack of class participation. The members just sit and stare!

Asking the questions from the manual (usually something like: "how do you feel about...", "How can we apply this...", etc) gets no response. I tried sharing what passages impressed me in the assigned reading and then ask other to share, but still no response.

I feel that 95% of the people don't do the reading, and they only have to read about a chapter a day to keep up! It's very frustrating.

Oh my golly gosh that does sound frustrating! I can imagine how our SS President would react if our class was like that. (He was in the army and a bit like the father in 'The Sound of Music'! )Thankfully we have lots of participation and just a bit of rambling but by and large even if half the class haven't read the scriptures (and it's beyond me why they can't seem to find time to do that, it's not exactly going to take up all their day is it?) they do at least read the bit of a guide and have some idea what we are talking about and join in.

I'm currently teaching a seminary class of one and I get the blank look sometimes so I can relate to it but I can usually manage to coax something out of her eventually.

We've got a great Gospel Doctrine teacher who was incredibly nervous when she was first called and really didn't want to do it. In fact she's still nervous but she does a brilliant lesson and I'm glad that we have such a great class who help it to be a spirit filled lesson each week where we all come away having learned something.

[rameumptom]

In my Gospel Doctrine class, twice last year someone has spoken disparagingly about the theory of evolution, like a pre-science approach is actual Church doctrine. When such issues arise, I wish we could deviate from the lesson plan enough to adequately address this issue. Otherwise it tends to promote superstition as being official doctrine.

I suggest you carry along the First Presidency's Official Declaration on evolution from 1934(?). It states that the Church does not have an official policy, and that science and religion are separate entities. Then you express that members are allowed to have an opinion, for or against this idea, but that it is only an opinion - since the Church has no doctrinal basis for evolution/creationism/etc.

The thing is, many members have been raised and spoon-fed entirely on the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie. Both were very determined and strong against evolution. I think we need to help members understand that while Darwinism in its current form is probably wrong, there may be elements of it that are correct. In this same fashion, Elder McConkie stated that Eve coming from Adam's rib is purely symbolic. Well, if that's the case, what other parts are symbolic or mythological? All that's required is that Adam and Eve were historical people and that they fell from grace. Everything else can be symbolism used to enhance the story, just as symbolism is used in the temple rites to help us understand the deeper meanings of God's mysteries.

Sadly, there will be some that will never loosen their death grip on their first edition Mormon Doctrine, even though hundreds of changes were made for the 2nd edition.

[Guest Malcolm]

Absolutely right. We are commanded to study and research and to inquire. We should be able to be versed in all manner of theory and familiar with the thesis of the day. But I don't have to make up my mind!

Truth be told The father did not leave behind his notebooks on the creation. intelligence is at the core of the creative period, the how we must wait till the resurrection so we can sit around and interview The Father.

[rameumptom]

There are many things we have little information on, things we do not need to know right now. For example, we know we will all resurrect, but how does that get accomplished? Does the First Presidency even possess the keys of resurrection right now? I personally do not think so, as those are not needed at this time, and are held by Christ.

[Moksha]

There is a Scripture, but I don't know how to interpret it. (Meaning, I'm not sure of the official Church stance on it.)

Isaiah 4

2 Nephi 14

It just suggests to me that there might be some sort of plural marriage during the Millennial Reign. Nowhere do I find anything saying this is how it will be in the Celestial Kingdom.

Just for curiosity, I did look up John Gill's esposition on Isaiah:

Isa 4:1 - And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man,.... Not in the days of Ahaz, when Pekah, son of Remaliah, slew in Judah a hundred and twenty thousand men in one day, 2Ch_28:6 as Kimchi thinks; for though there was then such a destruction of men, yet at the same time two hundred thousand women, with sons and daughters, were carried captive by the Israelites, 2Ch_28:8 but in the days of Vespasian and Titus, and in the time of their wars with the Jews; in which were made such slaughters of men, that there were not enough left for every woman to have a husband; and therefore "seven", or a great many, sue to one man to marry them, contrary to their natural bashfulness. It is a tradition of the Jews, mentioned both by Jarchi and Kimchi, that Nebuchadnezzar ordered his army, that none of them should marry another man's wife; wherefore every woman sought to get a husband; but the time of this prophecy does not agree with it: saying, we will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; which used to be provided for wives by their husbands, and that according to law, Exo_21:10 but rather than be without a husband, they promise, in order to engage him to marry them, to provide food and raiment for themselves, by their own labour. The Arabic version adds, "neither in anything will we be troublesome:'' only let us be called by thy name; let us be married to thee, let us become thy wives; for upon marriage the woman was called by her husband's name: to take away our reproach: of being unmarried, and having no offspring: or it may be rendered in the imperative, "take away our reproach" (l); so the Targum, Septuagint, and Oriental versions.

[Elphaba]

The key is, we need to know the group we are with, first. Second, we need to review just what the purpose of a class is all about. While the intellegentsia in Cambridge may have enjoyed a rousing speculation class, the majority of the members are not.

Most LDS were not raised in the Church. Most have been members of the Church for less than 20 years. They didn't have Primary and MIA and seminary and Institute. So, the gospel needs to be based strongly on the doctrinal issues, rather than on the speculative.

Where do such deeper discussions belong? Invite a group of like-minded people to your home for weekly/monthly discussions, if you like.

The reality is, we will not be saved by the "mysteries" of Adam-God, plural marriage, or where Kolob is located. We will be saved on the doctrines and principles of the Gospel. And isn't that the key purpose the Church should have - to save people?

We do need to make sure we are not among those who are "ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth." There is lots to know, but little of it is of true value to us in the long run.

Oh wow, I think I've just been to my first Sunday School class in years! Hallelujah!

I doubt you or any one else can say what will or will not save any one person. I know that attendance in our "rousing classes" was high. I left out your "speculation" because that is not what it was. We discussed the history, not the "what if."

Then I returned to Utah where there was no "rousing" anything, just people gnawing on their books. I admit I did not approach anyone to have a "rousing" like-minded group, because gnawing on your books is a good sign they probably just want to go home and eat. I know that's what I'd want to do!

As far as the "intelligentsia," I assure you no one was out of bounds in Cambridge. With a mosh of students, converts, and secretaries like me, you couldn't help but have a great Gospel Doctrine class each Sunday. And I assure you, no one was gnawing on their books.

And the converts loved it!

Although I will say, I think honesty is one lesson that probably never gets enough time, whether you're in your chapel pew or at your chapel keyboard.

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

Elphaba,

What works in Cambridge does not necessarily work for the ordinary member. Not all are deep thinkers. I love a deep discussion, but do not do so in Church meetings. There is so much depth of doctrine that can be explored.

For instance, I taught Gospel Doctrine this past week on 2 Nephi 1-2. I was able to discuss issues such as liberty vs security, opposition, the endowments/gifts of the Fall and the Atonement, how the trials and struggles of this life provide the opportunity for exaltation, etc. All of these are key issues that need to be discussed in a Gospel Doctrine class, to help the members understand salvation and core doctrines better.

I do agree with the sentiment expressed by Elder Holland in his General Conference talk, "a Teacher called of God", wherein he warns us not to teach spiritual Twinkies (all fluff and no doctrine), or to be uninspiring in our lessons. In a stake conference once, Elder Holland made an interesting challenge: to the sisters, he told them not to take an entire week to prepare a lesson; and the brethren he challenged to take more than an hour to prepare!

[rameumptom]

Elphaba:

I doubt you or any one else can say what will or will not save any one person. I know that attendance in our "rousing classes" was high. I left out your "speculation" because that is not what it was. We discussed the history, not the "what if."

One thing I CAN tell you that will save people: the Atonement of Christ and the core doctrines, ordinances and principles of the Gospel. All the rest of it is interesting and gives us greater understanding, but is not necessary for salvation.

As I mentioned before, many in the world (and often including in the Church) are "ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth." And Pres Packer has warned us about false knowledge - things that may be true, but have little to do with actual doctrine or salvation.

While I can enjoy a discussion on Adam-God, who the Holy Ghost is, etc., they do not compare intellectually nor spiritually with discussions on the doctrines of the Church. For me, to better understand the atonement and the principles of the Gospel on a deeper level are more important than anything else. To understand the ordinances is key, because they divulge "the mysteries of godliness" (D&C 84).

More can be learned about the temple ordinances from studying the Book of Mormon and receiving inspiration than from practically anything else. Little is learned of the ordinances and exaltation by studying issues that are peripheral to the core doctrines.

Rameumptom

[Misshalfway]

I think that if an instructor is prepared...temporally and spiritually then the lesson will go well. There can be all the speculation and the tangent taking, but if the instructor is full of the Spirit and able to follow it, identify it and testify of it when it is there in the lesson, then the people who listen will be able to discern truth from error. Even if the teacher isn't that dynamic.

[Elphaba]

One thing I CAN tell you that will save people: the Atonement of Christ and the core doctrines, ordinances and principles of the Gospel. All the rest of it is interesting and gives us greater understanding, but is not necessary for salvation.

I can see from my previous posts why you would get the impression that Christ was not the emphasis of every lesson, and that is my fault. In fact, he was. One of my favorite things in my branch was watching the converts in class learn about Christ, and ask any question they wanted. Those discusssions were the best, as I learned more in one month about Christ than I had in the previous seventeen years growing up in So. Cal.

As I mentioned before, many in the world (and often including in the Church) are "ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth." And Pres Packer has warned us about false knowledge - things that may be true, but have little to do with actual doctrine or salvation.

While I can enjoy a discussion on Adam-God, who the Holy Ghost is, etc., they do not compare intellectually nor spiritually with discussions on the doctrines of the Church. For me, to better understand the atonement and the principles of the Gospel on a deeper level are more important than anything else. To understand the ordinances is key, because they divulge "the mysteries of godliness" (D&C 84).

More can be learned about the temple ordinances from studying the Book of Mormon and receiving inspiration than from practically anything else. Little is learned of the ordinances and exaltation by studying issues that are peripheral to the core doctrines.

I'm sure that is all true. And none of it changes the wonder and joy that we all felt by dicussing both the milk and the meat. If you believe we did not behave correctly in our branch, that our branch president was somehow not doing his job by encouraging us to expand our knowlege of the Church, its history and its doctrine, or that our instructors were at fault for not following your "syllabus" above, that's okay. You get to think that.

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

I'm sure that you all handled it well. It sounds like you focused on the important issues. I just had two points that perhaps I wasn't getting fully across: First, there is ample room for deep discussions if it concerns doctrines of the gospel.

Second, there are many not-so-smart members out there that think they are smart, that attempt to introduce what they believe is doctrinal, but is just speculation. Such "discussions" tend to lead us away from quality, spiritual discussions and into contention and lack of Spirit. As Jacob said of the Jews, they "looked beyond the mark." I just wanted to emphasize such points.

Thirdly, we need to ensure that new members are fed the milk and that the meat which the older members need is really meat, and not speculation or spiritual twinkies.

[Aelswyth]

Wow, reading these stories is kind of freaking me out. Part of me feels like maybe I should have visited different wards before jumping into the LDS waters... :)

In my ward, we discuss things and comment in a very free way. I, as a woman and a new convert, have never for a moment felt compunction about raising my hand to comment or speculate or ask a question. I guess I just assumed all wards were alike in that respect, and that Mormonism, with its wonderful emphasis on freedom and education and intelligence, would never be the kind of religion that discouraged or prevented the free exchange of ideas in the classroom setting. It sounds like I was wrong!!! I'm pretty worried, now... what if we move and end up in one of the suppressive wards? I won't last long in that kind of environment.

Also, not all new members need to be fed milk. Some, like myself, have studied Church doctrine long and hard before deciding to join; and personally I find the milk, while tasty, to be not really filling at this point. I am dying to sit down at the grown-ups' table and sink my teeth into some of that spiritual meat!!! Many of the members I've encountered seem flabbergasted that a new convert could have more knowledge of Church doctine than many long-time members. It seems that sometimes the leaders take rather a too-dim view of the intellectual capacity of members, whether new or otherwise, and unnecessarily restrict the range of the lessons based on that perceived "Joe Schmoe" mentality. If Gospel Doctrine classes aren't the place to take on Deep Doctrine and a limited amount of edifying speculation, then where is? Is there another class that delves deeper into these things later on? If not, why not? True, they may not be essential for salvation, but once you've got the essentials down, shouldn't there be room for learning more about the non-essentials? Otherwise what is to prevent well-educated and/or long-time members from eventually leaving the class out of boredom and lack of intellectual stimulation?

Elphaba, your Cambridge classes sound sooooo good!

[Guest Malcolm]

Wow, reading these stories is kind of freaking me out. Part of me feels like maybe I should have visited different wards before jumping into the LDS waters... :)

In my ward, we discuss things and comment in a very free way. I, as a woman and a new convert, have never for a moment felt compunction about raising my hand to comment or speculate or ask a question. I guess I just assumed all wards were alike in that respect, and that Mormonism, with its wonderful emphasis on freedom and education and intelligence, would never be the kind of religion that discouraged or prevented the free exchange of ideas in the classroom setting. It sounds like I was really wrong!!! I'm pretty worried, now... what if we move and end up in one of the suppressive wards? I won't last long in that kind of environment.

Also, not all new members need to be fed milk. Some, like myself, have studied Church doctrine long and hard before deciding to join; and personally I find the milk, while tasty, to be not really filling at this point. I am dying to sit down at the grown-ups' table and sink my teeth into some of that spiritual meat!!!

Please do not be scare..LOL

I am also a convert and we have moved a couple of times in ten years. Every ward is different and instructors vary from ward to ward. Some have great (have acquired) skill in conducting the class/lesson some are not. Things can digress at times during a class but if there is leadership in the classroom it gets back on track rather easily.

The other issue is that this forum does not represent a true cross section of the LDS membership statistically or otherwise. Not to mention that unless you have been reading for a while you would not guess who is member and who is not. Opinions and interpretation may vary but you must be careful how you read teh forum. A,ways look for what the prophets have said on the subject.

Beyond that, we are all entitle to thoughts, ideas and interpretation of what a particular scripture says. However, the only binding authority when it comes to the Church are the General Authorities and the Presidency of the Church. You are free to go on a limb and interpret as you please. But it does not mean much if it is not online with what the bretheren revealed as to that particular scripture. It is personal revelation as long as it is not contrary to the truth and will already revealed by the Lord.

I join in a prior statement: some think they know. But they don't know that they actually don't know much." :)

[Aelswyth]

Please do not be scare..LOL

I am also a convert and we have moved a couple of times in ten years. Every ward is different and instructors vary from ward to ward. Some have great (have acquired) skill in conducting the class/lesson some are not. Things can digress at times during a class but if there is leadership in the classroom it gets back on track rather easily.

The other issue is that this forum does not represent a true cross section of the LDS membership statistically or otherwise. Not to mention that unless you have been reading for a while you would not guess who is member and who is not. Opinions and interpretation may vary but you must be careful how you read teh forum. A,ways look for what the prophets have said on the subject.

Beyond that, we are all entitle to thoughts, ideas and interpretation of what a particular scripture says. However, the only binding authority when it comes to the Church are the General Authorities and the Presidency of the Church. You are free to go on a limb and interpret as you please. But it does not mean much if it is not online with what the bretheren revealed as to that particular scripture. It is personal revelation as long as it is not contrary to the truth and will already revealed by the Lord.

I join in a prior statement: some think they know. But they don't know that they actually don't know much." :)

Thanks; I certainly do focus on the actual teachings of the Church as opposed to anything else, although I also believe useful information can be garnered from sources such as FARMS and FAIR.

One question has occurred to me in response to your post: Is everything taught by the Presidency and Apostles authoritative and binding on the Church? I was under the impression that unless the teaching is specifically stated to be a revelation from God, then it is simply the words of the human man; and that therefore it is not necessarily an infallible statement of fact or truth, but rather the learned and perhaps inspired guidance of the man in question. Is this a mistaken view? Are all teachings and words spoken by the leaders to be considered official and binding on members as doctrine? Or only those declared to come directly from God?