174 replies to this topic

[Craig Paxton]

Within Mormonism there is a wide gulf of belief among active members of the church.  There are those who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, who take Adam and Eve literally and subscribe to the belief that there was no death before the fall  potentially in the same ward or sunday school class are others who hold completely opposite views i.e. billion year old earth, death existed prior to the fall and that Adam and eve are to be taken as a metaphor. Also creation vs evolution

These are just a few examples of competing beliefs within the same classroom,ward, stake, mission and church. I' could also give examples of this wide gulf even among church GA's Other examples would be Book of Mormon geography limit vs hemispheric, heredity  of native Americans or even the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

In light of such a wide and often conflicting belief spectrum within Mormonism, does the church owe it to its membership to provide some clarity?  Certainly God's church is a house of order and not confusion. Should such diversity of beliefs exit in the church?  Should the church correct those who have an incorrect understanding?

Edited by Craig Paxton, 16 June 2012 - 05:49 PM.

[cdowis]

I don't think that the church should be addressing such issues as the age of the earth.  We are knee deep dealing with immorality, the family, keeping the youth active in the church, temple work, etc.

Our plate is already full without dealing with things outside the temple recommend questions.

Just my personal opinion, of course.

PS. Regarding death before Adam, I have suggested this as a "possible" way of dealing with certain questions on the creation of the world.  I want to make it very clear that I have never advocated this as a competing doctrine.

Edited by cdowis, 16 June 2012 - 05:56 PM.

[Craig Paxton]

cdowis, on 16 June 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

I don't think that the church should be addressing such issues as the age of the earth.  We are knee deep dealing with immorality, the family, keeping the youth active in the church, temple work, etc.

Our plate is already full without dealing with things outside the temple recommend questions.

Just my personal opinion, of course.

PS. Regarding death before Adam, I have suggested this as a "possible" way of dealing with certain questions on the creation of the world.  I want to make it very clear that I have never advocated this as a competing doctrine.

But oft times it is BECAUSE of these conflicts that people leave the church. Why not just clarify these issues and keep them as believing tithe paying members?

[Duncan]

How do you propose they do this? What if we get into a situation where a prophet says something like this is the way it is and then 50 years later another prophet says this is the way it is now, so a correction of the correction

Edited by Duncan, 16 June 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[SamIam]

Craig Paxton, on 16 June 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Within Mormonism there is a wide gulf of belief among active members of the church.  There are those who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, who take Adam and Eve literally and subscribe to the belief that there was no death before the fall  potentially in the same ward or Sunday school class are others who hold completely opposite views i.e. billion year old earth, death existed prior to the fall and that Adam and eve are to be taken as a metaphor. Also creation vs evolution

Should the church correct those who have an incorrect understanding?

I hit the wrong button and am amending this post will be done in a minute...

Edited by SamIam, 16 June 2012 - 06:38 PM.

[cdowis]

Craig Paxton, on 16 June 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

But oft times it is BECAUSE of these conflicts that people leave the church. Why not just clarify these issues and keep them as believing tithe paying members?

1. I guess some think that the goal is to continue to "get their tithing", but I don't think they will have much of a testimony if it is based on the age of the earth.

Testimony comes from etc etc and that is a topic covered very often.

2. The Lord has chosen not to give us complete answers to these questions, so the church leaders could only provide opinions and speculation, as it has already done.

We need to take the lead from the Lord in these matters.  Why not take it up with Him.

Edited by cdowis, 16 June 2012 - 06:20 PM.

[Craig Paxton]

Duncan, on 16 June 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

How do you propose they do this? What if we get into a situation where a prophet says something like this is the way it is and then 50 years later another prophet says this is the way it is now, so a correction of the correction

Well. That's kind of where we are today isn't it. Living prophets correcting dead prophets errors?  Certainly giving clarity to us living now couldn't hurt and when that clarity is shown to have been in error..the then living prophet can merely issue more clarity for the now dead prophets earlier pronouncements

[Craig Paxton]

SamIam, on 16 June 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Thoughts?
:-)

Edited by Craig Paxton, 16 June 2012 - 06:33 PM.

[mbh26]

Quote

The Lord has chosen not to give us complete answers to these questions.

I wonder if Brigham Young would have agreed that he didn't know the complete truth in these matters.  Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McKonckie...  I think they were pretty sure they had the absolute truth on these issues.  Bottom line, they didn't know the absolute unchangeable truth, but did profess to know it and commanded those beneath them to believe and agree with them.

That being said, I feel about the Church "lesson" manuals about the same way Joseph Smith once felt about the Millenial Star when he said to the editor William W. Phelps, "Either render it more interesting or it will fall, and it will be a great loss if it does."  Why not just take a little less authoritarian approach and round table some opinions in classes.  Don't set yourself up on such a pedestal and it won't be such a hard fall if you turn out to be less than correct.  It'd sure be better than teaching classes in which nothing is really being taught at all for fear of being wrong.

[Kenngo1969]

I believe you're referring to a wide spectrum of belief, not a "gulf" of belief.  It's interesting, and perhaps instructive, though, that you use the word "gulf."  Perhaps in your mind or in the minds of people who are similarly disaffected or skeptical, differences of belief on the topics you mention do separate the skeptical from the nondisaffected, or the faithful who have differing opinions on these matters from one another.  I'm not aware of any commandment which says, "Thou shalt believe [x]" with respect to any of the things you mention.

God has, however, commanded us, "I say unto you, Be One, and if ye are not One ye are not Mine" (Doctrine & Covenants 38:27).   When He tells us to be one, he's not telling us that we must believe [x] or we'll get kicked out of the club ... (And no, I don't really care who might've told you that you have to believe [x] or you'll be kicked out of the club: he or she was wrong; God is the keeper of the gate, and "He employeth no servant there" (2 Nephi 9:41).)  When God commands us to be one, He's not telling us that we have a duty to stand up and loudly proclaim the error of Brother Hickenlooper's ways when he preaches the gospel of non-evolution; He's saying should smile good-naturedly and love old Brother Hickenlooper even if he does have some whacked-out ideas about this or that.

None of the items you mention are integral to anyone's salvation.  When God has anything important to tell me about the age of the earth, evolution, Adam and Eve, et cetera, He'll let me know.  In the meantime, I know someone who'd love to drive wedges between people over issues such as these, but it isn't God.    I try not to listen to him.

Edited by Kenngo1969, 16 June 2012 - 06:59 PM.

[calmoriah]

Quote

does the church owe it to its membership to provide some clarity?  Certainly God's church is a house of order and not confusion. Should such diversity of beliefs exit in the church?  Should the church correct those who have an incorrect understanding?

If the Lord gives specific revelation on this issues, I would suspect the leaders would pass it on.  But until he does, if they corrected anything it would be with their own personal understanding which might be wrong....so better no correction and let the variety of beliefs stand until revelation is actually given.

[Craig Paxton]

Kenngo1969, on 16 June 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

I believe you're referring to a wide spectrum of belief, not a "gulf" of belief.  It's interesting, and perhaps instructive, though, that you use the word "gulf."  Perhaps in your mind or in the minds of people who are similarly disaffected or skeptical, differences of belief on the topics you mention do separate the skeptical from the nondisaffected, or the faithful who have differing opinions on these matters from one another.  I'm not aware of any commandment which says, "Thou shalt believe [x]" with respect to any of the things you mention.

God has, however, commanded us, "I say unto you, Be One, and if ye are not One ye are not Mine" (Doctrine & Covenants 38:27).   When He tells us to be one, he's not telling us that we must believe [x] or we'll get kicked out of the club ... (And no, I don't really care who might've told you that you have to believe [x] or you'll be kicked out of the club: he or she was wrong; God is the keeper of the gate, and "He employeth no servant there" (2 Nephi 9:41).)  When God commands us to be one, He's not telling us that we have a duty to stand up and loudly proclaim the error of Brother Hickenlooper's ways when he preaches the gospel of non-evolution; He's saying should smile good-naturedly and love old Brother Hickenlooper even if he does have some whacked-out ideas about this or that.

None of the items you mention are integral to anyone's salvation.  When God has anything important to tell me about the age of the earth, evolution, Adam and Eve, et cetera, He'll let me know.  In the meantime, I know someone who'd love to drive wedges between people over issues such as these, but it isn't God.    I try not to listen to him.

Gulf....spectrum simantics really...but I do appreciate your thoughts. I agree my example are perhaps the most obvious but certainly not the only ones. My point is that the church could simply eliminate this disparity of belief in core areas by simply providing a little clarity. But I guess to do so someone would have to actually step up to the plate....and I don't see that happening anytime soon

Could you imagine similar spectrum of thought on other core areas. I.e. nature of sin, the atonement, Christ etc?  If not there why here?

But wouldn't it be nice if those who speak with God could do so?

Edited by Craig Paxton, 16 June 2012 - 07:14 PM.

[SamIam]

Craig Paxton, on 16 June 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Within Mormonism there is a wide gulf of belief among active members of the church.  There are those who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, who take Adam and Eve literally and subscribe to the belief that there was no death before the fall  potentially in the same ward or Sunday school class are others who hold completely opposite views i.e. billion year old earth, death existed prior to the fall and that Adam and eve are to be taken as a metaphor. Also creation vs evolution

Should the church correct those who have an incorrect understanding?

Craig, I appreciate that you didn't mention me by name.  However, the role of the church in these kinds of issues isn't pertaining to these kinds of principles.  There does seem to be a kind of realignment of late for the fact that we are losing so many to the conflict of science and theology. Yet the church's only true purpose is to bring people unto Christ.  When individuals come unto Christ in proper fashion and with complete hearts might mind and strength, then the various viewpoints that may emerge subsequent to that process are insufficient to rock that foundational testimony of Jesus Christ.  Amongst ourselves, as believers, we can entertain any number of diverse opinions upon the unanswered questions of our existence and get along just fine.

However, this is a new age.  When I began raising children, I began to pay more attention to the temptations they were undergoing.  I realized that where, in my era, I didn’t even know what drugs where until I was in about 8^th grade, things had changed.  My children were coming home from school with questions from their peers about drugs, sex and rock and roll in the second and third grades.  The problem was that where I, in my fourteenth year, had a foundation and mental capacity to at least consider the implications of bad choices, they at that youthful age simply lacked the tools to always be able to figure it out.  Their minds were still in the infancy of transition between childhood and adulthood and they genuinely lacked the capacity to make these kinds of decisions.  If the right friend comes along, who is in 5^th or whatever grade and who appears so much older and wiser, my children were being subjected to temptations ahead of their capacity to respond properly.  As parents we early on realized we could not raise our children the way we were raised – the timing would have been way off and we would have risked their loss to deeds of evil and corruption.

What we face now is the same issue in the church.  I didn’t really have a genuine testimony of the Gospel until I was around 24 years old and it was only a very week and fragile thing subject to all sorts of assault.  I was an 8 year old spiritually.  Yet I was able to navigate the Fawn Brodies and such that were in such limited presence in my day reasonably well until the time came that I had a very solid testimony.  All of the others “truths” of LDS  history and challenges of a church in its infancy were better weathered because the church had been able to successfully complete the foundational part of raising up a child of God to the point that I realized that independent of everything else it was Jesus Christ that mattered.  Upon my testimony of the divinity of him as my Savior, I have thus far managed to remain stalwart as His servant.

However, it is no longer the same for my children.  In their teens and going through college they are now being assaulted with challenges to their spiritual well being for which they could have been unprepared.  I’m pretty sure I would have been.  In a state of spiritual infancy, a person is very much more challenged now than ever before.  So not only do they have to remain true through the moral crisis but now even the best of our youth must embrace a formidable intellectual crisis before they are generally ready to do so.  In my mind this is the epitome of the war in heaven, when the battle of ideas and theories of how it would be when we got to earth and how best to prepare for the future event of a physical birth where all unknowns.  Everybody had a theory of what it would be like and what the “rules” were going to be .  This battle waged just as it does now.  It was as convincing then, even as it is now, that even the brightest and strongest were sometimes lost. Now that we have matured as a religious people that same battle rages relative to a future that is in large part still unknown and many are not ready for the escalated terms of engagement that guarantee some, perhaps another third, more or less, are going to be lost.  

Since the foundation of the battle really is the strength of the testimony of Jesus Christ, the church must stay focused on that imperative in its efforts. Genuinely, convert a person to Christ and the battle is better endured by that individual.  Amongst such believers, we accept that one or another of us may vary in our opinions of Adam and Eve, evolution and a host of other ideas that are being promulgated. However, we also understand the tools of the adversary and the church as a whole is gearing up to try to address the fact that the spiritually weak are proliferating and being lost upon such principles.  The church as a body will permit the individuals their personal differences of opinion and stay out of the mix…until the individuals begin to become party to the army of Satan in their efforts to publicly or otherwise engage in a practice that must be identified for what it is – a subversive effort to destroy the testimony of Jesus Christ.  Though there will be multiple efforts to reclaim along the path a persistent resistance and continued effort to destroy Gods children will garner an appropriate response – whatever that may turn out to be.  

Here though is the rub and I feel partial answer to your question that will probably be rejected most.  Some of the questions that we are being asked to decide upon such as first death, first flesh, Adam and Eve, the age of the earth the conflicts of theology and the theories of men are not without some level of potential grasp within the constraints of the gospel and science considered together. In recent years my studies have enabled me to see potentials for how each of these things fit precisely under the umbrella of the scriptural record and yet maintain the integrity of what science knows – not so much the theories, but what is known.  Potential ages of the earth, the fossil record and a multitude of other principles fit well within the principles of physics as we know them and upon considering all aspects of the scriptural record the clues are there to address all issues and it eliminates all of the huge problems you have to step over to maintain belief in our current paradigm of these issues from sciences perspective.  The most significant contingency to being able to grasp any of this material though is one thing.  You have to have a testimony in Jesus Christ, the scriptures and his prophets.  Upon these principles a vista of thought can be shown that puts everything in place and completely removes even sciences conflicts with itself over such things as bio-genesis, Cambrian Explosion, impossible numbers of genetic mutations and there is still room for science to discover more and it’s covered.  All of these can be merged within the scriptural record and science and with much more grace that we currently do now treating them independent of each other.

Edited by SamIam, 16 June 2012 - 07:44 PM.

[ksfisher]

According to the handbook the purpose of the church is as follows:

The Church provides the organization and means for teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to all of God’s children. It provides the priesthood authority to administer the ordinances of salvation and exaltation to all who are worthy and willing to accept them. (Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 1. Families and the Church in God’s Plan)

If people are leaving the church because of their beliefs about the age of the earth, evolution, etc, then they are looking to the church to provide answers to questions that the church is does not claim to provide.  While some of these matters are touched upon in Sunday school and other classes, they are only used to provide context for the teaching of the gospel.  When we learn more of the earth and our history it should serve to deepen the context through which we understand the Lord's dealings with us.

We should be basing our testimonies on the Savior and his gospel, not historical events.

[Log]

Craig Paxton, on 16 June 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

In light of such a wide and often conflicting belief spectrum within Mormonism, does the church owe it to its membership to provide some clarity?  Certainly God's church is a house of order and not confusion. Should such diversity of beliefs exit in the church?  Should the church correct those who have an incorrect understanding?

Quote

"I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine. It looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter-day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It don’t prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." - Joseph Smith

/thread

Edited by Log, 16 June 2012 - 07:17 PM.

[Robert F. Smith]

Craig Paxton, on 16 June 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Within Mormonism there is a wide gulf of belief among active members of the church.  There are those who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, who take Adam and Eve literally and subscribe to the belief that there was no death before the fall  potentially in the same ward or sunday school class are others who hold completely opposite views i.e. billion year old earth, death existed prior to the fall and that Adam and eve are to be taken as a metaphor. Also creation vs evolution

These are just a few examples of competing beliefs within the same classroom,ward, stake, mission and church. I' could also give examples of this wide gulf even among church GA's Other examples would be Book of Mormon geography limit vs hemispheric, heredity  of native Americans or even the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

In light of such a wide and often conflicting belief spectrum within Mormonism, does the church owe it to its membership to provide some clarity?  Certainly God's church is a house of order and not confusion. Should such diversity of beliefs exit in the church?  Should the church correct those who have an incorrect understanding?

As Kenngo and Calmoriah observe herein, these are largely non-problems and most LDS members are untroubled by such fringe issues.  Indeed, the LDS Church has not been characterized by the centrifugal forces which divide and expand denominational christianity into ever more splinter groups.

Having a real testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ seldom involves such evanescent factors, and is really dependent upon continuing revelation and the influence of the Holy Spirit.  You ought to reflect, Craig, on how it is that of the full range of types of christian churches, it is the LDS Church which continues to have the highest levels of charitable giving along with strong unity of faith.  There are of course wolves lurking among us who attempt to take down a weak member of two when they are hungry, but that is what predators do isn't it?

[Craig Paxton]

My question posed in my OP seems quite simple really...afew days ago there was a thread on wolfs in sheeps clothing among church members....one conclusion in that thread was if these wolves convey false doctrine in church they should be turned into the bishop. And the false understanding coming from the wolf be corrected  Well this thread is coming from a different angle. There is in the church different understanding on various topics within the church. Why not offer some clarity?  Identify those areas where there is conflicting beliefs and merely clarify so the there is uniform understanding.   It doesn't seem too difficult

Maybe because the question is coming from me rather than a believer there is this push back. But it seems like the church would want some agreement on core beliefs.  But if none of it matters. Then perhaps they could just say that. That none of it matters and just specify those areas where conformity does matter

Edited by Craig Paxton, 16 June 2012 - 08:10 PM.

[Duncan]

Craig Paxton, on 16 June 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

My question posed in my OP seems quite simple really...afew days ago there was a thread on wolfs in sheeps clothing among church members....one conclusion in that thread was if these wolves convey false doctrine in church they should be turned into the bishop. And the false understanding coming from the wolf be corrected  Well this thread is coming from a different angle. There is in the church different understanding on various topics within the church. Why not offer some clarity?  Identify those areas where there is conflicting beliefs and merely clarify so the there is uniform understanding.   It doesn't seem too difficult

Maybe because the question is coming from me rather than a believer there is this push back. But it seems like the church would want some agreement on core beliefs.  But if none of it matters. Then perhaps they could just say that. That none of it matters and just specify those areas where conformity does matter

I would say there is agreement on core beliefs, faith in Christ, repentance,baptism, Holy Ghost, enduring to the end.

[rpn]

I suppose if Heavenly Father inspires someone as to the correct information, then disseminating it would be the very next thing.  But all of the things you are speaking about have no scriptoral answer.

[Whiskeypete]

ksfisher, on 16 June 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

According to the handbook the purpose of the church is as follows:

The Church provides the organization and means for teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to all of God’s children. It provides the priesthood authority to administer the ordinances of salvation and exaltation to all who are worthy and willing to accept them. (Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 1. Families and the Church in God’s Plan)

If people are leaving the church because of their beliefs about the age of the earth, evolution, etc, then they are looking to the church to provide answers to questions that the church is does not claim to provide.  While some of these matters are touched upon in Sunday school and other classes, they are only used to provide context for the teaching of the gospel.  When we learn more of the earth and our history it should serve to deepen the context through which we understand the Lord's dealings with us.

We should be basing our testimonies on the Savior and his gospel, not historical events.

Love this reply.