Mormonism 101 Faq On Church Newsroom Website

[Sky]

Anybody seen this? Thoughts? Could this represent an exciting new development or a start of something great to come?

I'm happy to see the Church explain and clarify it's basic doctrines. But some of the answers strike me as a little too oversimplified. It looks perfect for a brochure. I'd like to see something put out by the Church that addresses the more controversial issues in a detailed way instead of leaving that up to the apologists or the critics.

But this is a start.

[thesometimesaint]

Sky:

A 101 in college represents the very beginnings, or the simplist of course work to understand. IOW The Basics, without which nothing after that makes sense. Maybe sometime later the Church will publish 201-500 level lessons.

[LDSGuy]

Thought is was a very informative site. Great for confusion about the church and basic doctrines.

[BCSpace]

Being published by the Church, it is official doctrine. Nothing new. Simplified versions of doctrine as you stated; milk before meat. I think you'll see primers like this in various places on the Church's web sites to make sure everyone has the basic info. Some on another other board have erroneously claimed it represents a change in doctrine. The priesthood ban and plural marriage remain official doctrine. Nothing exciting or great imho.

[Sky]

The priesthood ban and plural marriage remain official doctrine.

Even if they are official doctrine (which isn't clear to me), you won't exactly see the Church publicly defend or give an explanation for these past practices. I think this is what leads to the ongoing speculations and confusion as to whether or not these things are or were doctrine. And this is why I'd like to see the Church address this head on instead of simply moving on quietly. The latter approach has worked well for the Church for a long time, but not so much any more.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Sky

[BCSpace]

Even if they are official doctrine (which isn't clear to me), you won't exactly see the Church publicly defend or give an explanation for these past practices. I think this is what leads to the ongoing speculations and confusion as to whether or not these things are or were doctrine.

These doctrines are officially published in various manuals and other publications including the Church's web site so there is no doubt as to doctrinicity. I agree that the Church will not address them head on using instead PR tactics to deflect the issue. This is what the Church should do as milk before meat is required in the case of the general public.

[Sky]

These doctrines are officially published in various manuals and other publications including the Church's web site so there is no doubt as to doctrinicity.

Well then, how does this sqaure with "We don't know"...?

It’s unfortunate, but I'm lead to believe that some things that were said by previous Church leaders wasn't actually doctrine. And it has caused pain and embarrassment for the Church.

We can either choose to hang on to what was said 60 years ago (give or take), or go with what is being said today. I have no choice but to go with the latter. But it still doesn't clear up some of the confusion for me!

Edited March 12, 2012 by Sky

[blueadept]

In learning the basics of Mormonism 101, I always found this site fairly good.

http://www.askgramps.org/about-gramps/

While it's not an official LDS site, it's been around long enough and goes into a lot of detail in regards to Mormonism.

Any thoughts about this site? As a non-member, I would give it a good grade.

Edited March 12, 2012 by blueadept

[cinepro]

In learning the basics of Mormonism 101, I always found this site fairly good.

http://www.askgramps.org/about-gramps/

While it's not an official LDS site, it's been around long enough to into a lot of detail in regards to Mormonism.

Any thoughts about this site? As a non-member, I would give it a good grade.

"Ask Gramps" is one of the best online examples of orthodox/conservative/chapel Mormonism. Almost everything he says ably represents what most LDS probably believed in 1956.

For example:

The theory of evolution is based on and is a part of the more general theory of uniformitarianism, which states that changes in the earth’s topology have occurred exclusively as the imperceptively slow erosion processes of rain, wind, freezing and thawing, and the counter imperceptively slow mountain uplift from tectonic plate motion. Catastrophism, the counter theory to uniformitarianism, which includes catastrophic flooding, volcanic action, earthquakes, meteoric impact and near misses by planetoids, has much more to commend it than does uniformitarianism. You must remember that the proponents of uniformitarianism, which comprise essentially all of academia today, are steeply ensconced in their theory. For the most part, they believe that the evidence is so overwhelming that they teach it as a provable and demonstrable theory. However, the fundamental facts are that 1) they generally have heard nothing else, 2) they are protecting their jobs and 3) they are protecting their egos.

Also:

Gramps,

You answered a recent question about how Noah got all the animals together. The land was not divided then. Now my question. After the land was divided…. how did all those strange animals end up in Australia???

Bob, from Alamosa, Colorado

Dear Bob,

The land wasn’t divided while Noah was in the ark. The deluge occurred in 2348 BC and Noah was in the ark for about a year. Peleg was born 104 years after the flood occurred. So it’s not illogical to conclude that all the survivors of the flood that ended up in Australia had ample time to get there before the earth was divided.

Gramps

Edited March 12, 2012 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

In learning the basics of Mormonism 101, I always found this site fairly good.

http://www.askgramps.org/about-gramps/

While it's not an official LDS site, it's been around long enough to into a lot of detail in regards to Mormonism.

Any thoughts about this site? As a non-member, I would give it a good grade.

Just glancing at it, I think it looks fine so long as one pays attention to the disclaimer:

This website is not owned by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes called the Mormon or LDS Church). The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position of the Church. The views expressed by individual users are the responsibility of those users and do not necessarily represent the position of the More Good Foundation. For the official Church websites, please visit LDS.org or Mormon.org.

That said, if I were uninitiated and wanted to learn more about Mormonism, I would probably go to the official sites first before branching out and weighing the unofficial sites against the content in the official sites.

I would do that with most any topic or organization, not just Mormonism.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[blueadept]

Just glancing at it, I think it looks fine so long as one pays attention to the disclaimer:

That said, if I were uninitiated and wanted to learn more about Mormonism, I would probably go to the official sites first before branching out and weighing the unofficial sites against the content in the official sites.

I would do that with most any topic or organization, not just Mormonism.

For apologists, I respect this point of view. As long as the route leads to having the investigators contact your LDS missionaries, what's the issue in how it's done? I believe that's the prescribed way in bringing new members to the church that all members are called to do in the efforts to evangelize.

When I've done door-to-door efforts for my church, the #1 goal is to find the fallen-away Catholics and help them to find their way home. The second goal is to share the Gospel with others and hope I can encourage them to go to our year-around investigator class.

[cinepro]

Honestly, anyone looking for information about the Church should probably steer clear of AskGramps.

http://www.askgramps...cend-from-noah/

http://www.askgramps.../who-was-peleg/

http://www.askgramps...e-hill-cumorah/

There are too many articles to list that perpetuate the Cain/black skin version of history.

Edited March 12, 2012 by cinepro

[blueadept]

Honestly, anyone looking for information about the Church should probably steer clear of AskGramps.

http://www.askgramps...cend-from-noah/

http://www.askgramps.../who-was-peleg/

http://www.askgramps...e-hill-cumorah/

There are too many articles too list that perpetuate the Cain/black skin version of history.

Ahhhhhh.......you found one of the pitfalls for askgramps

Of course, he's one from my father's generation whom, IMHO, didn't handle that issue too well. He's old-school which has it's pluses and minuses.

[Sky]

Honestly, anyone looking for information about the Church should probably steer clear of AskGramps.

On the other side of the coin, we have liberal/non-orthodox sites like Ask Mormon Girl and Mormon Stories. They probably aren’t the best places to go for information about the Church either. I doubt they represent how most mainstream Mormons believe. I haven’t been able to find a perfect website for information about the Church.

[DH]

"77% of members attend church at least weekly." Really?

Edited March 13, 2012 by DH

[DH]

The priesthood ban and plural marriage remain official doctrine.

Plural marriage, yes. Priesthood ban, I'm not convinced. It was a policy, yes, but not a doctrine, and sans any revelation that I've ever heard of.

[thesometimesaint]

The best site for what we believe.

http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

[blueadept]

Anybody seen this? Thoughts? Could this represent an exciting new development or a start of something great to come?

I'm happy to see the Church explain and clarify it's basic doctrines. But some of the answers strike me as a little too oversimplified. It looks perfect for a brochure. I'd like to see something put out by the Church that addresses the more controversial issues in a detailed way instead of leaving that up to the apologists or the critics.

But this is a start.

IMO, it's a good start. I enjoy the layout as askgramps. If you can make the data base as extensive as that, that would be awesome. In looking at LDS.org. I'm interested in the site for 10 minutes. I can spend a couple of hours at researching askgramps and not be bored.

Just my 2 cents

[TAO]

"77% of members attend church at least weekly." Really?

DH, check out this link:

http://religions.pewforum.org/portraits

Click Portraits > Beliefs and Practices > Mormons > 3rd Chart Down

[BCSpace]

These doctrines are officially published in various manuals and other publications including the Church's web site so there is no doubt as to doctrinicity.

Well then, how does this sqaure with "We don't know"...?

What precisely do you think needs squaring?

It’s unfortunate, but I'm lead to believe that some things that were said by previous Church leaders wasn't actually doctrine. And it has caused pain and embarrassment for the Church.

If you're referring to the recent newsroom statements (which are doctrine, but not the only doctrine by far), the Church never specified what was speculation and what wasn't. Plus it continues to publish on it's home page Topical Guide an interesting doctrinal tidbit as well as various other things taught in it's own cirriculum.

We can either choose to hang on to what was said 60 years ago (give or take), or go with what is being said today. I have no choice but to go with the latter. But it still doesn't clear up some of the confusion for me!

Simply going with all that the Church says will clear it up for you. Eqivocating on one or more doctrinal items will always result in confusion. I've provided the doctrinal references and links in numerous other threads so you should know where to find them. Notice that, as the Church says, the full reason is not given and it is clear from the doctrine that from the time of Adam there has been a ban. And also that there is scriptural precedent for lineage based priesthood selection. And also that the ban was lifted because today is the long promised day; speaking of which, who do you think made such a promise?

The easiest and most doctrinally accurate way to think of the doctrines of plural marriage and the priesthood ban is to note that we are merely in a stage of each one. For plural marriage, we are in a stage of non authorization and we know from the scriptures (Jacob 2) that God can authorize any time He chooses. For the priesthood ban, we know that we are in the long promised day when every worthy male can be eligible for the Priesthood. And that is also how those doctrines have not changed one whit.

[BCSpace]

"77% of members attend church at least weekly." Really?

DH, check out this link:

http://religions.pew...m.org/portraits

Click Portraits > Beliefs and Practices > Mormons > 3rd Chart Down

What is the methodology of this poll? Active members only? Internet visitors only? Census? While only anecdotal, I've served in too many wards and stakes (California, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Texas) to change my own approx 50% figure for church attendance in the USA. Specifically sacrament meeting. My own opinion is that those who consistently come to the other blocks but not sacrament, for whatever reason, are not church attenders in the way the LDS Church desires them to be.

[Calm]

"77% of members attend church at least weekly." Really?

The study it footnotes says of those who self-identify as Mormon, etc. etc.

[why me]

But this is a start.

Maybe it is a start. But the problem is much deeper than a 101 website. Anyone who has attended a mormon sunday school or priesthood/relief society meeting knows the problem quite well. Every Tom, Jim and Jane has an opinion about what is doctrine and what is not. They also hold various opinions were people can agree or disagree. And since in every ward, people know each other quite well, it is like a discussion over dominoes. And it is here that we have a problem.

I think that what is now happening is an attempt to limit the free wheeling discussion that mormons have had in their classroom studies and come up with a blueprint for what is actually believed. We need to remember that the lds church back in the good ol' days of JS and BY was a frontier free wheeling church that basically sought to shun a creed. And this is one reason why we have some quotations from past leaders that may not be too likeable. They spoke from the 'hip' and not from the brain. But this is what also made the lds church an exciting place back in the day.

Edited March 13, 2012 by why me

[why me]

The critics are already making hay about this site, claiming that it is a change in doctrine and an attempt to become more mainstream. I don't see that way at all. I just see it as a way to bring clarification to what the lds church actually believes. It is time to bring the church out of the free wheeling days of the frontier and into a more settled view of beliefs.

Edited March 13, 2012 by why me

[thesometimesaint]

why me:

I'm all for clarifications of doctrine, but lets not get so staid that we loose out on continuing revelation.