Watered Down Doctrines

[changed]

I quote this site, not to take into question the authority of President Hinckley, but to show a trend in the depth of what is being taught.

http://home.teleport.com/~packham/gbh-god.htm

Notice the words, President Hinckley does not disagree with Joseph and the others, rather, he states something to the fact that â??we can no longer teach that doctrineâ?. This is not the only thing that is no longer taught...

Why are some doctrines no longer being taught? Have the majority of the people in the LDS church fallen to such a state that we are no longer worthy to be taught anything but the bare necessities in church? If that is not it, then what is going on?

...unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; ....24 Then he which had received the one talent ...I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant,.... from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

(New Testament | Matthew25:14 - 29)

Are doctrines being taken from us? It feels as if they are.

[Daniel Peterson]

No doctrine can be "taken from us."

No doctrine has been taken from me.

[aletheia]

Have the majority of the people in the LDS church fallen to such a state that we are no longer worthy to be taught anything but the bare necessities in church?

The Secong Coming is just around the corner and a lot of people have strayed away from the basics. The basics are what save us, namely, faith, repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost. I feel that the Prophets arn't nessecarily going away from teaching us the deeper doctrines, but rather, bringing us back to what REALLY matters.

[selek]

I find it very interesting that you're using the words of an avowed apostate- who believes all religious beliefs are bunk- to demonstrate that our beliefs have been "watered down."

Do you agree with Packham that we, as believers, are merely deluding ourselves on points of doctrine, anyway?

I guess is justifies the old dictum, "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."

I thought the name sounded familiar.

From the cached Wikipedia page:

Richard Packham (born Howard Richard Packham on September 21, 1933), is a critic of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and Christian belief in general and is active in the Exmormon community. He helped establish the Exmormon Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to "offering emotional support to those who are leaving (or who have left) Mormonism." The Foundation operates exmormonfoundation.org, and holds an annual Exmormon conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.[1] He served as the Foundation's president for several years. He is also actively involved through his own extensive website and in personal communication with exmormon groups and individuals.[2]

A retired instructor of foreign languages and an attorney, he grew up and was married in the LDS Church, but while a graduate student, he began questioning several aspects of his LDS faith that seemed to present unresolvable problems and became a self-described atheist.[3]

Wikipedia doesn't currently have a page on Mr. Packham- the original article was deleted when it was discovered that Packham had been using the Wiki article to toot his own horn and further his ministry through questionable means.

Tell me, changed, given the skeletons in this man's closet, do you still consider him to be reputable and capable of representing Mormon beliefs in an accurate and fair-minded fashion?

[MormonMason]

I think "changed" misunderstands. And, why believe a known critic of the Church over one's own eyes and ears? For example, following are quotes from the Gospel Principles manual and Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith.

This the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God.... He was once a man like us;...God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-346).

(Gospel Principles, p. 305)

God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!

(Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p. 40, )

Perhaps we can discuss what official Church doctrines have been taken from us?

[CMZ]

I feel that the Prophets arn't nessecarily going away from teaching us the deeper doctrines, but rather, bringing us back to what REALLY matters.

It is true that some people can "wade in the morass of the esoteric" (to use Robert Millet's phrasing) but it is not true that one who understands clearly the deeper doctrines must also be unhinged from what REALLY matters.

[Olavarria]

Are doctrines being taken from us? It feels as if they are.

I'll let the Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley speak for himself:

The media have been kind and generous to us. This past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage. There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5...-1-32-1,00.html

Then Elder, now President Henry B. Eyhring

I bear you my witness that God the Father lives, a glorified and exalted Man. He is the Father of our spirits. He and His Beloved Son, both resurrected and glorified, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in a grove of trees in New York. They were there. The Father spoke to Joseph, first calling him by name and then introducing His Son. Heavenly messengers came to restore all the priesthood keys of authority. Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. It had been written on plates by ancient prophets, one of whom gave them to Joseph and took them back when the translation was done. The keys of the priesthood are on the earth today. As a witness of Jesus Christ, I testify to you that I know He lives and that He leads His Church.

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,...-3751-1,00.html

And lets not forget the Church's Joseph Smith Manual for Relief Society and Elder's Quorum

God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make Himself visible,â??I say, if you were to see Him today, you would see Him like a man in formâ??like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another. â?¦

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...contentLocale=0

[aletheia]

It is true that some people can "wade in the morass of the esoteric" (to use Robert Millet's phrasing) but it is not true that one who understands clearly the deeper doctrines must also be unhinged from what REALLY matters.

Suppose the Prophets are leaving it up to us to study the deeper doctrines for ourselves as they have already been taught by previous prophets. Suppose God wants the prophets to keep the deeper mysteries that havn't yet been taught until were ready. Joseph Smith knew about polygamy way before he taught it. It's ultimitely up to God when doctrines are taught. Suppose He wants the basics to be the core focus for our day in time right now which is Christ Jesus.

I'm sure the prophets today are holding back doctrines and I beleive its for our own good which I'm perfectly fine with. Our critics have enough to fuss about as it is...

[changed]

No doctrine has been taken from me.

How would you know if it had been? Do you know all that you don't know? I thought no one had the entire doctrine...

9 We believe ...that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

(Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:9)

The basics are what save us, namely, faith, repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost. I feel that the Prophets arn't nessecarily going away from teaching us the deeper doctrines, but rather, bringing us back to what REALLY matters.

There is truth... many of the deeper doctrines do lie in the basics.

I find it very interesting that you're using the words of an avowed apostate-

yes yes, I am aware. Not what he was saying, but the quotes he was using.

Perhaps we can discuss what official Church doctrines have been taken from us?

I don't know what makes it "official" or not?

This does not seem to be taught anymoreâ?¦

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-10.html

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our FATHER andour GODâ?¦ Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. (seems like something important to talk about in sacrament meetings)

We donâ??t talk about this one much eitherâ?¦

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-11.html

It is well know, however, to the congregation before me, that the Latter-day Saints have embraced the doctrine of a plurality of wives, as a part of their religious faithâ?¦

If there is something beyond the veil that we need to prepare our self for, perhaps we should start talking about itâ?¦

So, Adam - God stuff, Polygammy, ... there are other things, like the word of wisdom - I think people eat way too much meat... I mean that one seems to have been water down from what it originally was... just a few examples.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

How would you know if it had been? Do you know all that you don't know? I thought no one had the entire doctrine...

9 We believe ...that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

(Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:9)

There is truth... many of the deeper doctrines do lie in the basics.

yes yes, I am aware. Not what he was saying, but the quotes he was using.

I don't know what makes it "official" or not?

This does not seem to be taught anymoreâ?¦

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-10.html

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our FATHER andour GODâ?¦ Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. (seems like something important to talk about in sacrament meetings)

We donâ??t talk about this one much eitherâ?¦

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-11.html

It is well know, however, to the congregation before me, that the Latter-day Saints have embraced the doctrine of a plurality of wives, as a part of their religious faithâ?¦

If there is something beyond the veil that we need to prepare our self for, perhaps we should start talking about itâ?¦

So, Adam - God stuff, Polygammy, ... there are other things, like the word of wisdom - I think people eat way too much meat... I mean that one seems to have been water down from what it originally was... just a few examples.

Well since what you brought up isnt offical there you go.

[changed]

Well since what you brought up isnt offical there you go.

Please define what makes something "official"

9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 89:9)

all hot drinks? or just coffee?

12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used csparingly;

13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 89:12 - 13)

who only eats meat in the winter or in famine? When have you heard anyone teach that?

[aletheia]

Please define what makes something "official"

The First Presidency's stamped approval which would be the Churches logo.

[Daniel Peterson]

How would you know if it had been?

Well, I suppose if one or more doctrines had been somehow "taken" from me, there would be some signs of that -- surgical scars on my skull, say, or pages scissored out of my copy of the Journal of Discourses or the Times and Seasons, or something of that sort.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Please define what makes something "official"

9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 89:9)

all hot drinks? or just coffee?

12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used csparingly;

13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 89:12 - 13)

who only eats meat in the winter or in famine? When have you heard anyone teach that?

Nice, I love your cherry picked verse. Please read the 1st few verse of this chapter. What does it say???

Offical doctrine can be found in the canon of scripture which is the Bible, BoM, D&C, and PofGP. General Confrence is also Offical doctrine. The JoD had to be reviewed by the 1st presidency back in the day for it to be count offical, and there is no indication that that ever happened.

To further answer your qestion Im sure you can look at the AofF and find the answer to what "hot drinks" means. Im not going to spell this out for you.

[changed]

The First Presidency's stamped approval which would be the Churches logo.

I quoted from past first presidencies and what they said in church meetings. It seems just coming from a prophet does not make it official doctrineâ?¦. Or it is only doctrine if it comes from the current prophet, once the prophet dies, time passes, the doctrines cease to be officialâ?¦ That is confusing.

I don't know that everything with the logo is official...

[annewandering]

having doctrine and living it arent always the same thing.

some things are for certain times.

i like the adam father and god one. he is our father. not sure what he meant by our god but i suppose there are more than one way to look at it.

some things become more clear, to me, as time goes by. perhaps this happened with joseph as well. i dont know. a journal tends to be musings. and as someone said. that book isnt doctrine.

[BCSpace]

Please define what makes something "official"

Read my siggy. The LDS Church has defined as doctrine anything published by it. Been that way for at least 3 decades (as long as I've been cognizant of the issue). So the scriptures are doctrine yes, but so are all lesson manuals, pamphlets, magazines, etc.

[changed]

Well, I suppose if one or more doctrines had been somehow "taken" from me, there would be some signs of that -- surgical scars on my skull, say, or pages scissored out of my copy of the Journal of Discourses or the Times and Seasons, or something of that sort.

LOL!I thought "Lectures on Faith" were removed...?

Read my siggy. The LDS Church has defined as doctrine anything published by it. Been that way for at least 3 decades (as long as I've been cognizant of the issue). So the scriptures are doctrine yes, but so are all lesson manuals, pamphlets, magazines, etc.

Thank you. So JoD is doctrine?

a journal tends to be musings. and as someone said. that book isnt doctrine.

The LDS Church has defined as doctrine anything published by it.

so... is there an official reference for either of these statements? Which is correct? What does "published" mean? ... JoD is published right?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just looked:

http://journalofdiscourses.org/volume-2/

The Journal of Discourses

General Conference Sermons, 1854-1886, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow & Joseph F. Smith

These are general conference talks by prophets etc... why would that not be considered doctrine? And if these are not doctrine, that would mean all GC talks are not doctrine correct?

[BCSpace]

Read my siggy. The LDS Church has defined as doctrine anything published by it. Been that way for at least 3 decades (as long as I've been cognizant of the issue). So the scriptures are doctrine yes, but so are all lesson manuals, pamphlets, magazines, etc.

Thank you.

You're welcome!

So JoD is doctrine?

No. It's not published by the Church.

The LDS Church has defined as doctrine anything published by it.

so... is there an official reference for either of these statements?

Yes. In the link published by the Church in my siggy.

Which is correct? What does "published" mean? ... JoD is published right?

It will say published or copyright by "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or the older "Corporation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

These are general conference talks by prophets etc... why would that not be considered doctrine?

Because they are not published by the Church. However, you will find in Church publications quotes from many non doctrinal sources, including the JoD. That means that particular quote is doctrine (if presented as such).

And if these are not doctrine, that would mean all GC talks are not doctrine correct?

They've (not the JoD ones) been published in the Ensign for a long time now. Those are doctrine. Remember also that LDS doctrine includes continuing revelation. Therefore, a newer publication/work, superceeds older ones.

This concept really goes back to 1835 where we see from D&C 107 that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 are equal in authority. Therefore, as seen in my siggy, both bodies have to agree and it has to be officially published (by the LDS Church as per the above).

[Daniel Peterson]

LOL!I thought "Lectures on Faith" were removed...?

Nope. I can still see them, in two different editions, from where I'm sitting at the moment.

[Deborah]

Why are some doctrines no longer being taught?

Why do some people keep coming up with this idea and therefore surmising there is something amiss either with the members or the leadership? The doctrines of salvation are being taught as always. Anything else has been and will always be speculation or musings of thoughtful individuals. The deeper doctrines and mysteries, for which the revelation has not been received, are designed for individual study and discernment. I believe that the leaders of the church have come to realize how critics love to misquote and take out of context all those ideas earlier generations had and therefore are more cautious in what they teach and even say in the public arena. Look how the antis are still trying to tear apart Brigham Young's teachings when he is not here to defend them. I would wager Pres Hinckley had a lot he could have said but didn't simply because it was not needed for our salvation and he of all people realized how the critics love to distort.

Nothing is stopping an indivdual from searching out and studying all they msyteries he wants.

[Notquitewetyet]

Why do some people keep coming up with this idea and therefore surmising there is something amiss either with the members or the leadership? The doctrines of salvation are being taught as always. Anything else has been and will always be speculation or musings of thoughtful individuals. The deeper doctrines and mysteries, for which the revelation has not been received, are designed for individual study and discernment. I believe that the leaders of the church have come to realize how critics love to misquote and take out of context all those ideas earlier generations had and therefore are more cautious in what they teach and even say in the public arena. Look how the antis are still trying to tear apart Brigham Young's teachings when he is not here to defend them. I would wager Pres Hinckley had a lot he could have said but didn't simply because it was not needed for our salvation and he of all people realized how the critics love to distort.

Nothing is stopping an indivdual from searching out and studying all they msyteries he wants.

I just want to file a complaint with this: If no revelation has ever been received on the deeper doctrines, where did they come from? Are you seriously arguing that Joseph just pulled the last 7 years of his teachings out of his ***? Plus, Joseph didn't seem to care too much what critics thought about his teachings:

Come on, ye persecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! For I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam.

[MormonMason]

...

I don't know what makes it "official" or not?

It can be known by the Church's official approval. Official Church literature has an approval date stamp on it, as well as a logo. In addition, we can know what is and is not doctrine on the Principle of Doctrine and Covenants 102, as well as what Brigham Young said in Journal of Discourses 9:91-92, which is in tacit agreement with principles taught in Doctrine and Covenants 102.

This does not seem to be taught anymoreâ?¦

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-10.html

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our FATHER andour GODâ?¦ Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. (seems like something important to talk about in sacrament meetings)

We donâ??t talk about this one much eitherâ?¦

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-11.html

It is well know, however, to the congregation before me, that the Latter-day Saints have embraced the doctrine of a plurality of wives, as a part of their religious faithâ?¦

This is not and never had been official doctrine of the Church. See Journal of Discourses reference above. Remember that not all the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were in agreement on this concept.

If there is something beyond the veil that we need to prepare our self for, perhaps we should start talking about itâ?¦

So, Adam - God stuff, Polygammy, ... there are other things, like the word of wisdom - I think people eat way too much meat... I mean that one seems to have been water down from what it originally was... just a few examples.

The revelation for plural marriage still exists in the Doctrine and Covenants. But, the principle has been suspended by command of the Lord. Therefore, anything relative to the practice of plural marriage is not applicable. This regards policy not doctrine, per se. And, even when the the practice of plural marriage was in the Church, several of the Brethren of the day stated even then that the Lord will make allowance and adjustment for those who are prevented from living that principle by circumstances, and even that there would be those who had but one wife in this life who also would receive exaltation.

As to the so-called "Adam-God stuff", see my above two comments and look at the reference. No agreement of the First Presidency and Twelve, no doctrine.

As to the Word of Wisdom, only four principles of the letter and one of the spirit are binding on the Church by both agreement of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve, and by virtue of being upheld by the general membership of the Church in General Conference. As to the rest of the Word of Wisdom, it is to be adapted to the abilities of individual saints. The revelation continues to exist in the Doctrine and Covenants and still is binding. The remainder of the WofW is not and never has been binding for the purposes of temple attendance and worthiness interviews. If you think they have, let's see the references to that effect.

Thus far, you have not provided a list of official doctrines that have been "watered down." By the way, the Journal of Discourses were not published by the Church. Not sure whether you were aware of that.

[kamenraider]

Has this doctrine been taken from us?

We have always taught to our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage, as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come.

...

[signed]

Wilford Woodruff

George Q. Cannon

Joseph F. Smith

Lorenzo Snow

Franklin D. Richards

Moses Thatcher

Francis M. Lyman

Heber J. Grant

John Henry Smith

John W. Taylor

Marriner W. Merrill

Anthon H. Lund

Abraham H. Cannon

--"Amnesty," Contributor 13 (Feb. 1892): 196. (another version in MFP 3:230 begins "We formerly taught...")

[No Touch]

I think the OP makes a mistake in focusing almost entirely on this one exchange with President Hinckley.

Clearly the Church still holds this teaching since it continues to publish it in official manuals like the Joseph Smith one currently in use, so there's no question on it being taken away.

Now do we emphasize it? While I must admit that I've never listened to all of any General Conference, I'm not aware of any Conference talks focused on this subject in my few years as a member, nor have I heard it as a subject in a sacrament meeting talk.

Most importantly though (to me) is to remember who President Hinckley was speaking to here - it was the outside world, not us members, and this is a controversial teaching. I don't think openly declaring it would be the best idea. I don't see President Hinckley's avoidance of this topic as any different from Joseph Smith needing to "hide" the truth about plural marriage for the sake of the Church. I don't think that declaring this doctrine publicly to the rest of the "Christian" world would do us much good in and of itself.

You guys know that whole milk-before-meat idea about teaching.