Should The Church Correct Those Who Have An Incorrect Understanding Of Gospel Subjects?

[ksfisher]

Historical events like, say, the Creation? The Condescension? The Atonement? The Crucifixion? The Resurrection? The Restoration?

If these are not historical - if they are fable - then your testimony is nothing but the effects of a frenzied mind.

I probably could have stated that thought more fully. Parts of my testimony are based on all of the events/concepts that were mentioned above. (except for the creation, which seems self evident, if it didn't happen then my mind is frenzied). The picture I have in my mind of the crucifixion of Christ is colored by my culture, my understanding of the scriptures, and what I have been taught in church.

Parts of this picture that I have formed are probably incorrect. Perhaps I have misinterpreted the intent of a scripture, or my cultural background has given me the idea that the apostles skin color was closer to Scandinavian than Palestinian, or some other hopefully small detail.

My testimony is based on my faith in Christ, and the belief that he died for my sins. My mental picture of his crucifixion is not part of that testimony. It can change as I learn more.

The same with the restoration. I know that it took place. I do know enough about history to know that people's recollection of events change over time. If one person says Joseph said one thing and another says he said something else I'm not bothered. That is history, not the gospel.

I hope things explains what I mean. I don't feel like the written word is my natural medium. The words I write seem very clumsy and incomplete at times.

[ksfisher]

I've always wondered why Heavenly Father will answer a child's prayer to find a lost ball, but he won't tell us if we were created through evolution, why blacks were denied the priesthood, why polygamy was commanded, etc. Yes, I know that the answers to those question don't pertain to our salvation, but still...

God helping a child find a ball teaches us that God cares about the smallest details of our lives. If he gave us the answers to evolution and other difficult questions we would be taught that we didn't need to think for ourselves.

[SamIam]

I've always wondered why Heavenly Father will answer a child's prayer to find a lost ball, but he won't tell us if we were created through evolution, why blacks were denied the priesthood, why polygamy was commanded, etc. Yes, I know that the answers to those question don't pertain to our salvation, but still...

The answers to these questions do pertain to our salvation but in a much different way than we tend to look at the equation.

We have such a strong day to day imperative as a result of our education and perhaps our natures to seek answers to questions. So emphasized is this paradigm of everything being measured on the face of its “knowability” that we super impose this requirement upon theology.

Theology however, has an entirely different emphasis. It first has a primary objective of faith. This faith is predicated upon concepts that cannot at first actually be 100% knowable. In fact, at first it is simply only kind of a hope that something may be real.

Already, then, we find at the very fundamental levels the two paradigms of thought have differing goals and objectives. However, the very few who will actually apply the strictures of faith and learning are actually the only ones that ever are granted the chance to know all that is knowable for as Bruce R. McConkie points out an experience that is associated with calling and election is that the visions of the eternities are opened up to them and they finally after having maintained the levels of purity and obedience are given to know all about the creation, the fall and subsequent events.

Since everything we will do hereafter has at its foundation the exercise of faith with knowledge this imperative of starting to develop the talent of exercising faith is an immediate requirement of theology. The strictures of science, history, philosophy etc have only a concern for the now of our current existence and while for that they may contribute some value, they are wholly inadequate for developing the talents that our next estate requires.

The great burden then of knowing the answers then rests upon obedience to the gospel and of properly addressing and remaining faithful through the various trials of our faith where we do not know the answers but trust in the Lord that according to His plan we can.

Edited June 17, 2012 by SamIam

[Log]

The answers to these questions do pertain to our salvation but in a much different way than we tend to look at the equation.

We have such a strong day to day imperative as a result of our education and perhaps our natures to seek answers to questions. So emphasized is this paradigm of everything being measured on the face of its “knowability” that we super impose this requirement upon theology.

Theology however, has an entirely different emphasis. It firsts has a primary objective of faith. This faith is predicated upon concepts that cannot at first actually be 100% knowable. In fact at first it is simply only kind of a hope that something may be real.

Already, then, we find at the very fundamental levels the two paradigms of thought have differing goals and objectives. However, the very few who will actually apply the strictures of faith and learning are actually the only ones that ever are granted the chance to know all that is knowable for as Bruce R. McConkie points out an experience that is associated with calling and election is that the visions of the eternities are opened up to them and they finally after having maintained the levels of purity and obedience are given to know all about the creation, the fall and subsequent events.

The great burden then of knowing the answers then rests upon obedience to the gospel and of properly addressing and remaining faithful through the various trials of our faith where we do not know the answers but trust in the Lord that according to His plan we can.

I wish all could hear this - but I know only those with ears to hear, hear.

Verse 4 from Come, Listen to a Prophet's Voice

Then heed the words of truth and light

That flow from fountains pure.

Yea, keep His law with all thy might

Till thine election’s sure,

Till thou shalt hear the holy voice

Assure eternal reign,

While joy and cheer attend thy choice,

As one who shall obtain.

Honestly, I feel a lot of the time to ask, with rather pointed tone, "Why, o why, do we not take our religion seriously?" Why do we so often take the coward's way out, and accept those answers which give us peace from the world, but strife within the Church? Why do we value the reputation given from without, rather than the honor given from Above?

Why is it that we seek to reconcile ourselves with the world, rather than attain the visions of the Almighty, as Joseph did? Do we really not believe that we can have that? Or is it that we really don't believe in all this vision stuff?

Edited June 17, 2012 by Log

[Sine Saw Square]

What would be gained if during the next General Conference the prophet got up and said "The Lord has told me that the Big Bang theory is correct and the earth in fact turns four billion, four hundred hundred and fifty million, seven hundred and twenty three thousand, four hundred and eleven years old next Wednesday. A question regarding belief in these statements will now be added to the temple recommend questions."

How does this help further the mission of the Church? How does it help me love my neighbor more, or do my home teaching, or be patient with my kids? Does it convince anyone that the Book of Mormon is what it claims?

That I can ponder and cultivate my own answers to some of the questions you raise is an aspect of my church membership I value. We are told to study things out in our minds. We can personally ask for wisdom from God if we want to know the mysteries of His kingdom. As for your desire for uniformity, I find the thirteen articles of faith pretty satisfying. I think they "step up to the plate". Those are the core values of the Church and there is far less variety among the active membership regarding them.

Why do you care about achieving consensus in secondary issues within a belief system you don't believe in? I don't spend time worrying that disparate theories are held among global warming advocates or that there are factions of belief in other churches. I figure they can work thing out if they determine them to be important.

*** I meant that last paragraph sincerely. I am curious. Wasn't trying to be snarky but tone of voice doesn't translate very well over the Internet.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Sine Saw Square

[Freedom]

It becomes a slippery slope, and it is irrelevant to our eternal salvation. Let science deal with science and religion deal with principles and ordinances. I have been going to church for decades and the issues raised in this thread have never come up at church. People don't care. Those that do have missed the point.

[mapman]

No. In my opinion, our culture tends to promote certainty too much. This has caused many people to become fundamentalists and to break from the often ambiguous reality. One of our core doctrines is that we still have a lot to learn. That was the whole reason why there was the Restoration in the first place and why we have prophets and the Gift of the Holy Ghost and why we encourage people to become as educated as possible. The Church has always been clear about its central teachings, and I don't think it would do the Church good to pretend to know everything. The only person who knows everything and is right about everything is God.

Edited June 17, 2012 by mapman

[Darren10]

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?

LOL. As if that's the main purpose of The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! To gather together faithful tithe payers? Baptize eveybody who wants ot be baptize to fatten the pocketbook of the Church? Please.

As for the issue of evolution, age ofthe earth, etc. the disagreements hardly mount to significant division or schisms. nor is there evidence of any such a threat. The LDS Church, as far as I know, has never taken any position on science. Its members are thus perfectly free to believe as the may regarding science and that's probably a big reason why the disagreements do not mount to much at all within the Church. Brigham Young believed beings lived on the Sun. Good for him. The fact that there is no scientific evidence to support it today holds no ill against him as a true prophet of God. Were he alive today I'm absolutely positive he would believe no such thing. As a man, as science progressed, so would his thoughts on scientific matters. Joseph Smith never said there were men living on the Moon but if he did, so what? That would be what he would believe and anyone else who did not believe it would suffer no ill affect as a member of the Church.

This is a good standard to live by: do not allow differences in thought, in this case of science, to create divisions amongst the Saints. There are faithful practicing Saints today ("faithful tithe payers" as some may call them) who believe in man-made global warming. There are others, like myself, who think that's hogwash. Who cares either way? I do not allow differences in science create division between myself and my spiritual brethren and sisters. Truth be told, after attending different wards in different states and in two different continents, I can recall ZERO division within the Church based on science. It is very clear to me that God does not mind what we believe in science; only doctrines of His nature, of morality, of covenants, etc.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Darren10

[The Nehor]

I've always wondered why Heavenly Father will answer a child's prayer to find a lost ball, but he won't tell us if we were created through evolution, why blacks were denied the priesthood, why polygamy was commanded, etc. Yes, I know that the answers to those question don't pertain to our salvation, but still...

But he will. The answer to the child is given to the child. The answer to the other questions are given to individuals who earnestly desire to know and make it a study and send up a lot of prayers about it until they get an answer. God doesn't answer the prayers of many of those who ask those questions because he knows they won't be able to keep their mouths shut about the answers.

[cinepro]

LOL. As if that's the main purpose of The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! To gather together faithful tithe payers? Baptize eveybody who wants ot be baptize to fatten the pocketbook of the Church? Please.

Joseph Smith never said there were men living on the Moon but if he did, so what? That would be what he would believe and anyone else who did not believe it would suffer no ill affect as a member of the Church.

Well, for one thing, if he were speaking "as a prophet", it might indicate the degree to which his prophetic pronouncements were fallible. It could be especially useful in gauging the reliability of his non-falsifiable ones.

For example, there were many falsifiable promises made in early Patriarchal blessings that turned out to be...false. Since then, Patriarchs have gotten much better at avoiding these kinds of promises (and we've gotten better at "understanding" them), but such pronouncements in the early ones help us understand the nature and context such blessings should have in our lives.

Likewise, such statements by Prophets and Apostles help us to understand the nature of their knowledge and convictions. When Elder Nelson stands in conference and speaks out against the Big Bang, those who would discount this teaching as being uninspired can better understand why others might discount other things apostles might say.

As for the specific issues raised in the OP, people who disagree with the Prophets and Apostles over these issues are adamant that they are "unimportant" and encourage us to focus on the real important issues. But the Prophets and Apostles themselves have emphasized just how critically important these things are.

For example, Elder Nelson stood in General Conference and said:

Before we can comprehend the Atonement of Christ, however, we must first understand the Fall of Adam. And before we can understand the Fall of Adam, we must first understand the Creation. These three crucial components of the plan of salvation relate to each other.²

Sounds pretty dang important to me! Oh wait, that was Elder Nelson. And he was wrong about the Big Bang Theory, so he's probably wrong about this too.

And that's how it works!

Edited June 17, 2012 by cinepro

[Thinking]

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

Except the Church uses selected historical events to build testimony.

[CV75]

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?

Yes, on certain points of doctrine. I would say only on the most egregious infractions against the general teachings and applications of the Doctrine of Christ. This keeps the house from becoming cluttered in the first place. Everything else is fair game to misunderstand because nobody’s perfect, and there’s nothing better than freedom.

When I say "house", I mean it in terms of "tablernacle": our own bodies and everything in them, the temple, the general body of Christ. Each is united physically and spiritually on relatively few but extremely important principles.

[Darren10]

Cinepro #35;

Here's from FAIR:

The source for this claim is not Joseph Smith himself; the first mention comes in 1881 in Oliver B. Huntington's journal, who claimed that he had the information from Philo Dibble. So, we have a late, third-hand account of something Joseph is supposed to have said.[1] Hyrum Smith[2] and Brigham Young[3] both expressed their view that the moon was inhabited.

A patriarchal blessing given to Huntington also indicated that "thou shalt have power with God even to translate thyself to Heaven, & preach to the inhabitants of the moon or planets, if it shall be expedient."[4]

Huntington later wrote an article about the concept for a Church magazine:

As far back as 1837, I know that he [Joseph Smith] said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do -- that they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years.

He described the men as averaging nearly six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.[5]

So, it would seem that the idea of an inhabited moon or other celestial body was not foreign to at least some early LDS members. It is not clear whether the idea originated with Joseph Smith.

However, it should be remembered that this concept was considered 'scientific fact' by many at the time. William Herschel, the discoverer of the planet Uranus, died in 1822. Herschel argued "[w]ho can say that it is not extremely probable, nay beyond doubt, that there must be inhabitants on the Moon of some kind or another?" Furthermore, "he thought it possible that there was a region below the Sun's fiery surface where men might live, and he regarded the existence of life on the Moon as 'an absolute certainty.'"[6]

Other scientists announced that they had discovered "a lunar city with a collection of gigantic ramparts extending 23 miles in either direction."[7]

From this I green that a) Joseph Smith should not be credited with saying that there were men living on the Moon and b) that the idea of men living on the Moon was a 'scientific fact' at the time of Joseph Smith. So, anyone who believed it, including any prophet, than fine. This belief would not, nor should it, affect anyone's standing in the Church.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Moon_inhabited

Edited June 17, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Sounds pretty dang important to me! Oh wait, that was Elder Nelson. And he was wrong about the Big Bang Theory, so he's probably wrong about this too.

And that's how it works!

He was wrong? Here's the quote from your Nelson speaks against the Big Bang:

"Yet some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere," he said. "Ask yourself, 'Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?' The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions."

What's wrong with that?

/I really do not care to spend too much time on this tangent. So this is just a quick challenge.

[thesometimesaint]

Craig Paxton.

Because those subjects, and many more besides them, have absolutely no bearing on my salvation. To steal a quote from Galileo. The Church can tell me how to go to Heaven, but not how the heavens go.

[Log]

The Church can tell me how to go to Heaven, but not how the heavens go.

Does this mean you accept the leaders' teachings when they are unfalsifiable with respect to the claims of scientists, but whenever they come into conflict with the claims of science, you reject them? Why would you accept any of their teachings, then, if you feel they are wrong at each point their teachings can be tested by science? How do you exempt yourself from the reasoning Cinepro outlines above?

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

Nope. Because however old the earth is, it is about 4.5 billion years old; the elements being eternal, their not; of the earth being the center of universe, it's not; and other established facts, it has nothing to do with my salvation. Obviously if I didn't believe in God, Jesus, or the Resurrection. That probably would have a great deal to do with my salvation.

Edited June 17, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Flyonthewall]

How could someone tell the difference between "incorrect understanding" and incomplete understanding?

The gospel can be taught in some very basic terms, but it can also be very complex.

Using math as an example, someone just learning addition and subtraction may not understand all the formulas of algebra, and just because they don't understand algebra, doesn't mean they are wrong.

Not everyone is on the same plane of understanding when it comes to the gospel. Some people may have a stronger testimony because they have been able to integrate evolution into their understanding of it, but someone else may have a stronger testimony because they have rejectect evolution as part of the gospel.

Which one is right? which one is wrong? not my call. Both could be right and both could be wrong.

The Gospel is based on principals, not science(though true science and true religion go hand in hand). The gospel says God created Man. Whether that is by evolution or not is a non-issue, because either way, God did it.

[thesometimesaint]

Flyonthewall:

Agreed.

[Bikeemikey]

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.

The beliefs you have discussed are not core. I am also not seen an argument to support the principle that uniformity of beliefs or "core" beliefs is preferable to non-uniformity. Have you provided one and I missed it? The key theme of the LDS restored gospel is personal private religious conversion and experience. We do have a minimalist approach to orthodoxy. I fail to see how this is an issue? If as an outsider you are frustrated with the inconsistency of beliefs held amongst a wide range fo individuals who all claim to be LDS that is understandable. I don't think that warrants change.

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.

They do. Primarily with covenants. Baptismal interview and temple recommend interview seem to cover these.

As to the rest of it not mattering, sure it matters. Having correct knowledge and understanding is important. However, the Church simply is not pretending it is an authority on things like the age of the earth, areas where it has no expertise.

[ksfisher]

Except the Church uses selected historical events to build testimony.

The Church uses historical events to illustrate testimony building moments and to teach use about God's dealings with us. But, our testimony should not be based on the event.

For example, I don't have a testimony of the Willie & Martin hand cart company. But, understanding the miracles which took place in rescuing that company builds my testimony of Christ. If I one day find out that the place of a particular river crossing was misidentified all these years my testimony of Christ remains unchanged.

[Craig Paxton]

During my disaffection I was told by the SP that I could not discuss ANY of the historical or doctrinal issues I had the church with anyone including my own family members. Since seemingly everyone here claims members of the church do not need to have conformity of thoughts and beliefs. Why was I counciled to keep my mouth shut? There is a claim that one can have various beliefs but I was told I couldn't even talk about things that aren't even nailed down and have a wide spectrum of belief? Does that make any sense?

So may I ask what beliefs should there be uniformity and conformity on...I'll assume that anything not mentioned can be openly debated and open to a wide spectrum of perspective and subject to personal interpretation.

[Log]

You can believe whatever you want - but it is inappropriate to teach positions and opinions opposed to the teachings of the duly appointed servants of the Lord when upon the Lord's errands.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Log

[Darren10]

During my disaffection I was told by the SP that I could not discuss ANY of the historical or doctrinal issues I had the church with anyone including my own family members. Since seemingly everyone here claims members of the church do not need to have conformity of thoughts and beliefs. Why was I counciled to keep my mouth shut? There is a claim that one can have various beliefs but I was told I couldn't even talk about things that aren't even nailed down and have a wide spectrum of belief? Does that make any sense?

So may I ask what beliefs should there be uniformity and conformity on...I'll assume that anything not mentioned can be openly debated and open to a wide spectrum of perspective and subject to personal interpretation.

Though not 100% of the time, as a rule of thumb I do not comment directly on clergy matters of counsel or discipline which I have no direct knowledge of. Generally speaking, as Log pointed out, your opinions are fine so long as they do not evolve to become teachings contrary to official doctrines, policy, or moral positions of the church. As I recall years and years ago as a counselor in a branch presidency, I was involved with putting the clap down on a branch member who openly oppose a young woman (this was a singles branch) who got pregnant and decided of adoption. This matter was dealt with quite discretly and the young woman was the one who decided this. The young man who oposed this course of action was told quite directly to keep his opposition to himself and to avoid openly advocating his opposition to this younf woman's choice. The nature by which this young man reacted I'd say our reaction to him was perfectly appropriate. And believe me, or branch president was very open to differences of opinion.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Darren10

[Thinking]

For example, I don't have a testimony of the Willie & Martin hand cart company. But, understanding the miracles which took place in rescuing that company builds my testimony of Christ. If I one day find out that the place of a particular river crossing was misidentified all these years my testimony of Christ remains unchanged.

This is a poor example because I'm quite sure that the name of the river crossing was not used in the building of the testimony. If, however, you found out that the referenced miracles really didn't happen, but were exaggerations...

Note: I am not claiming that the recorded miracles were exaggerations. I only supposed such to illustrate the fallacy of your argument.