The Seven Deadly Heresies

[Zeta-Flux]

What if they were expressing their own opinions, and weren't acting in their role as "God's mouth-piece"? Are we allowed to then?

Of course. But doing so, without implying that you are correcting a higher authority of God, can be a difficult thing. It is quite easy to set one's self up as an authority; or at least give the appearance of such. But, from a practical point of view, how often do most of the members hear the prophets and apostles speak outside of their roles? I'd say, almost never, unless they are family.

[cinepro]

Of course. But doing so, without implying that you are correcting a higher authority of God, can be a difficult thing. It is quite easy to set one's self up as an authority; or at least give the appearance of such. But, from a practical point of view, how often do most of the members hear the prophets and apostles speak outside of their roles? I'd say, almost never, unless they are family.

Are you kidding? LDS apostles and prophets express their personal opinions from the pulpit all the time. In fact, I've learned from apologists that the less you agree with the leaders, the more they do it.

[Zeta-Flux]

Are you kidding? LDS apostles and prophets express their personal opinions from the pulpit all the time. In fact, I've learned from apologists that the less you agree with the leaders, the more they do it.

You asked about expressing opinions outside their roles. You didn't ask about expressing opinions in their roles.

[Anijen]

BRM was the most vocal about everything.

Brigham Young could be arguably the most vocal too.

[cinepro]

You asked about expressing opinions outside their roles. You didn't ask about expressing opinions in their roles.

Obviously, I would only teach something contradictory to the "higher authority" on the condition that they were wrong, and if they were wrong, then obviously they weren't speaking as "God's mouth-piece", but were only expressing their private opinion.

So according to your methodology, there wouldn't be a problem.

[Anijen]

Peter probably would choose a different companion over Paul they had a little animosity toward each other.

[Zeta-Flux]

Obviously, I would only teach something contradictory to the "higher authority" on the condition that they were wrong, and if they were wrong, then obviously they weren't speaking as "God's mouth-piece", but were only expressing their private opinion.

So according to your methodology, there wouldn't be a problem.

No, no, no. Just because someone is wrong, that doesn't mean they are not acting in the role they have been called to by God. We don't believe our prophets, apostles, seventies, high priests, elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and patriarchs are infallible.

I'm sorry, I thought you were familiar with this principle. It is quite possible for someone to be wrong, and yet act in the office to which they are called (although specific aspects of that calling, such as revealing God's word, might not be active). That is why we are supposed to verify with God all things we are taught. Usually that is done instantly, as we receive their words by the Spirit. Sometimes it takes sincere, continued searching and pondering. Sometimes we are told it is wrong.

[consiglieri]

It is not in anyone's province to publicly, nor privately, teach things contrary to what those in higher authority have publicly declared. It may be the province for one with equivalent authority to so do.

What does this post make me start to feel like Martin Luther?

[aletheia]

I had a question about heresy four: There are those who believe that the doctrine of salvation for the dead offers men a second chance for salvation.

Does this imply that only those who have never heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ are the only ones who are eligable for baptism for the dead? If so, then why do we baptize everyone and anyone even if they may have already had a chance in their lifetime?

[Mark Beesley]

It is not in anyone's province to publicly, nor privately, teach things contrary to what those in higher authority have publicly declared. It may be the province for one with equivalent authority to so do.

Log may misunderstand the role of an apostle. It is not the role of an apostle to publicly declare doctrine. It is the role of an apostle to testify of Christ. The declaration of doctrine is reserved to the body of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

Perhaps if Bruce R. McConkie were still alive, and had the opportunity to explain further what he meant when he used the word heresy, there would be less to discuss on the topic. Not everyone uses words precisely.

P.S. Didn't any of you guys take the day off for Labor Day????

[Mark Beesley]

I had a question about heresy four: There are those who believe that the doctrine of salvation for the dead offers men a second chance for salvation.

Does this imply that only those who have never heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ are the only ones who are eligable for baptism for the dead? If so, then why do we baptize everyone and anyone even if they may have already had a chance in their lifetime?

Because baptism, even if a person does not ultimately accept the attendant covenants and embrace the gospel, is necessary for a person to be resurrected. And since the resurrection is universal, so must baptism be universal. And since I'm not an apostle, feel free to publicly, privately and vociferously declare this statement to be heretical. . .

[Log]

Log may misunderstand the role of an apostle. It is not the role of an apostle to publicly declare doctrine. It is the role of an apostle to testify of Christ. The declaration of doctrine is reserved to the body of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

Mark may misunderstand the words I typed, for I have nowhere referenced what he addresses.

[Mark Beesley]

Mark may misunderstand the words I typed, for I have nowhere referenced what he addresses.

That may very well be the case. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that someone misunderstood what someone else was trying to say.

So, I guess we are in agreement that we are free to publicly or privately disagree with things that a apostle may have said when they are not speaking with or for the body of the Quorum?

[LDSMusic483]

I had a question about heresy four: There are those who believe that the doctrine of salvation for the dead offers men a second chance for salvation.

Does this imply that only those who have never heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ are the only ones who are eligable for baptism for the dead? If so, then why do we baptize everyone and anyone even if they may have already had a chance in their lifetime?

I think that the issue is whether someone has actually had the H.G. testify to them that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. Since only God can be the judge of that, we baptize everyone to give them the equal opportunity. Someone may have heard the gospel, but may not have had the opportunity to feel that it was true.

[Log]

So, I guess we are in agreement that we are free to publicly or privately disagree with things that a apostle may have said when they are not speaking with or for the body of the Quorum?

You are free to disagree. You are free to disagree publicly or privately; however, you are not justified in doing either.

[Strindberg]

In 1980, Bruce R. McConkie gave a well-known address called "The Seven Deadly Heresies," in which he lists seven beliefs that if subscribed to put one beyond the pale of salvation:

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?...mp;x=50&y=6

For purposes of this discussion, we will follow Elder McConkie's definition of a "heresy," that being some belief (as opposed to an act) that will keep one from being exalted.

I would like to open the discussion to any heresy that Elder McConkie listed or any other "heresy" that he may have missed.

Although I have my own personal feeling as to what heresy is the "worst," I would like to hear what other posters say before I "poison the well" by mentioning my thoughts on the subject.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Since past general authorities believed some of the 'heresies', how do we know that brother McKonkie's 'heresies' are not themselves 'heresies'? After all, we have only brother McKonkie's testimony that he is the one who has (or had) it right. For my part, I think that if God was so concerned with orthodoxy, in the strict sense of the word, then the correct way to believe would be more clear to people than it is.

[consiglieri]

For my part, I think that if God was so concerned with orthodoxy, in the strict sense of the word, then the correct way to believe would be more clear to people than it is.

Which takes us full circle back to the First Vision and the foundation of Mormonism.

Because it seems apropos to this thread, I will reiterate the statement by Joseph Smith that he never heard of a man being damned for believing too much, but they are damned for unbelief.

Joseph Smith also said that he reveled in the joy of believing as he chose; that it felt so good not to be "trammeled."

I, too, think it a good feeling; and that is why I tend to get a bit snarky when somebody wants to "trammel" me; regardless of who it may be or what position they may hold.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mark Beesley]

You are free to disagree. You are free to disagree publicly or privately; however, you are not justified in doing either.

Hmm, maybe I didn't misunderstand you after all. . .

[LDSMusic483]

Which takes us full circle back to the First Vision and the foundation of Mormonism.

Because it seems apropos to this thread, I will reiterate the statement by Joseph Smith that he never heard of a man being damned for believing too much, but they are damned for unbelief.

Joseph Smith also said that he reveled in the joy of believing as he chose; that it felt so good not to be "trammeled."

I, too, think it a good feeling; and that is why I tend to get a bit snarky when somebody wants to "trammel" me; regardless of who it may be or what position they may hold.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I have no issue with believing more than is necessarily taught. I remember once hearing ( I believe in the MTC) that Elder Ballard said something along the lines of "of course we know more than we teach you. when you start living what we teach you, we will teach you more." My issue is when the extra beliefs cause inappropriate actions or lack of them with the things we KNOW are right to do. Once again that is why I think the heresy of believing once we are sealed then we're assured exaltation. That presupposes that we don't need to continue enduring to the end. That's my only problem. If someone wants to believe a little more than what is taught, that's fine. I just think it can be considered a heresy when it causes someone to act differently than what the church teaches.

[emeliza]

I think this is one of the poorest addresses Elder McConkie ever gave, and I disagree with many of his points, the heretic that I am!

Um...I think I agree with this. Also......

Heresy one: There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths.

I have no idea and hate to speculate on such things. I think God is all knowing, but I am not sure if that means He knows all there is to know or if it means He knows all that we as mortals could possibly know.

Heresy two concerns itself with the relationship between organic evolution and revealed religion and asks the question whether they can be harmonized.

I disagree and think they can to some degree.

Heresy three: There are those who say that temple marriage assures us of an eventual exaltation.

I agree with this one.

Heresy four: There are those who believe that the doctrine of salvation for the dead offers men a second chance for salvation.

I am not sure I agree here. It might appear to be a second chance to us, but really be a first chance for the person.

Heresy five: There are those who say that there is progression from one kingdom to another in the eternal worlds or that lower kingdoms eventually progress to where higher kingdoms once were.

Gosh I really hope there is a way to move on or over come in the next world. I hope we aren't stuck.

Heresy six: There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

Yeah, I agree this one is wrong as I don't think Adam is the father of our spirit or the one we worship.

Heresy seven: There are those who believe we must be perfect to gain salvation.

I do think we have to be perfect in Christ for exaltation, but not necessarily salvation.

I personally think a heresy would be thinking we have even an ounce of understanding about what actually happens after life. Another one would be that the ordinances are saving rather than Christ.

[cjcampbell]

I had a question about heresy four: There are those who believe that the doctrine of salvation for the dead offers men a second chance for salvation.

Does this imply that only those who have never heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ are the only ones who are eligable for baptism for the dead? If so, then why do we baptize everyone and anyone even if they may have already had a chance in their lifetime?

This comes from a severe misunderstanding of what it means to have an opportunity to learn the gospel. We only have one chance to learn the gospel -- that is because we go through mortality (and the Spirit World after it) only once. We do not get to live life over and over until we get it right. But that one chance to learn and live the gospel is your entire life, not a fleeting moment that comes your way and then never comes around again. If that were so, what would be the point of sending missionaries to someone twice? And then sending missionaries to them again in the Spirit World? Each time a non-member sees the missionaries, he or she learns a little about the gospel. And everyone will continue to learn about the gospel until they have a thorough understanding of it. Your choice -- your one chance -- ends when you are either accepted into Paradise in the Spirit World or at the Final Judgment. After that, there is no second chance. The doctrine of salvation for the dead does not offer men a second chance for salvation. At some point, when you have enough understanding, you consciously make that choice. And from that point on there is no turning back. Either your calling and election are sure, or your damnation is.

[stn9]

Because baptism, even if a person does not ultimately accept the attendant covenants and embrace the gospel, is necessary for a person to be resurrected. And since the resurrection is universal, so must baptism be universal. And since I'm not an apostle, feel free to publicly, privately and vociferously declare this statement to be heretical. . .

Heretic. I mean, heretical.

"A man may be saved, after the judgment, in the terrestrial kingdom, or in the telestial kingdom, but he can never see the celestial kingdom of God, without being born of water and the Spirit" (TPJS, 12)

"Baptism by immersion under the hands of a legal administrator, one empowered to bind on earth and seal in heaven, is the initiatory ordinance into the Church on earth and the celestial kingdom in the world to come" (Mormon Doctrine, s.v. Baptism)

"Baptism is the door into the celestial kingdom. All the ordinances of the gospel pertain to the celestial kingdom" (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:45)

"Will those who enter the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms have to have the ordinance of baptism? No! Baptism is the door into the celestial kingdom. The Lord made this clear to Nicodemus. We are not preaching a salvation for the inhabitants of the terrestrial or the telestial kingdoms. All of the ordinances of the gospel pertain to the celestial kingdom, and what the Lord will require by way of ordinances, if any, in the other kingdoms he has not revealed" (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:329)

"They [those who believe not and are damned] would be held to the area where their work had been done, telestial or terrestrial. They will be saved in those kingdoms. They will be damned in those kingdoms. Doesn't matter which way they use it. It means they will be relegated to the area wherein they have earned their reward. And baptism, he has said over and over, is an absolute, and no one can have the kingdom without the baptism. That is one of the works. That is one of the first of all the principles and ordinances. That is a celestial law, and no one will go into the celestial kingdom without it. They can belong to any other organization and go into the terrestrial and telestial kingdom" (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 111)

Definitely a heretic. I mean, heretical.

[stn9]

You are free to disagree. You are free to disagree publicly or privately; however, you are not justified in doing either.

Did you just say that elder McConkie isn't justified in his doctrinal disagreements with Brigham Young? heh

[Log]

Did you just say that elder McConkie isn't justified in his doctrinal disagreements with Brigham Young? heh

It would be for the prophet or another apostle to make that judgement and execute it.

[stn9]

It would be for the prophet or another apostle to make that judgement and execute it.

So, you are saying that you are higher in authority in the priesthood than Mark, to whom you were replying, because you can judge him as unjustified in disagreeing--even privately--with someone higher in priesthood authority than himself?

And then, since the prophet or other apostle would have to judge Elder McConkie, would that prophet have to have been the prophet before Elder McConkie's death? Or would an apostle have to have been called, ordained and sustained to the Quorum of the Twelve before Elder McConkie in order to be higher in authority? Or would an apostle who was called, ordained and sustained to the Quorum of the Twelve after Elder McConkie but who becomes President of the Church be qualified? Just curious how you know these things.