What are the "Required Beliefs, Necessary for Salvation"?

[cinepro]

In all my years, I've never heard a word spoken among LDS membership doubting a universal flood. I mean, this was Primary 101. Where have all you skeptics been hiding?

Oops, this may help derail the thread. There are enough flood threads to cover this.

Just to be clear, something being "Primary 101" isn't a good thing when it comes to apologetics.

And for some reason, people who disbelieve the worldwide flood keep their mouths shut in Church. You have to read Sunstone and internet message boards to hear from them.

[Mudcat]

Oops, this may help derail the thread. There are enough flood threads to cover this.

Yeah the board is flooded with them.

[Brenda]

Just to be clear, something being "Primary 101" isn't a good thing when it comes to apologetics.

Well if you can't count on what you're taught in Primary, then what can you count on?

And for some reason, people who disbelieve the worldwide flood keep their mouths shut in Church. You have to read Sunstone and internet message boards to hear from them.

Why is that? If someone disagrees, why don't they speak out? I would, and I have, though it was never a major issue. Are they afraid, embarrassed, or don't feel it's worth it?

[JangoStango]

What are the non-negotiable, absolutely required things that all LDS must believe in, and about which the teachings of the Prophets and Apostles cannot be in error, and for which lack of belief makes one ineligible for exaltation?

-------------------------------

Here's my list:

- Everything in the Articles of Faith

- Belief in the Temple Ordinances

I've thought about this for a while as well, having watched how glibly people turn away from discussions of BoM historicity, evolution of man, polygamy, and many other message board topics. How easily can the canned dismissal "it's not important to my salvation" be tossed at other issues? Pretty easily, when it comes right down to it.

The only thing an LDS person must believe in is the teaching that the somebody has "priesthood" authority -- that is the bottom line. Articles of faith may be in error. Temple Ordinances could be just for fun. Christ's atonement and resurrection could be metaphorical. All that stuff could go out the window, and the Church would still be there and you could still be in it as long as you agreed with the claim that person X (right now, President Monson) is God's chosen dude. Once you disagree with that claim, you are in apostasy.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That is a round about way of admitting an "orthodoxy" requirement. A knowledge of the things of God is knowledge of the doctrine. A knowledge of the doctrine makes you more accountable for your behavior. You can't have it both ways. You can't tell people that there are no requirements while adding requirements at the same time. There is no need to sugar coat.

If saving "knowledge" is conceived of as being lists of various facts then our salvation is predicated on trivia rather than the state of one's soul.

In all my years, I've never heard a word spoken among LDS membership doubting a universal flood. I mean, this was Primary 101. Where have all you skeptics been hiding?Oops, this may help derail the thread. There are enough flood threads to cover this.

Now you can say you have. I am among LDS membership and I doubt a universal flood.

Yeah the board is flooded with them.

I've thought about this for a while as well, having watched how glibly people turn away from discussions of BoM historicity, evolution of man, polygamy, and many other message board topics. How easily can the canned dismissal "it's not important to my salvation" be tossed at other issues? Pretty easily, when it comes right down to it.The only thing an LDS person must believe in is the teaching that the somebody has "priesthood" authority -- that is the bottom line. Articles of faith may be in error. Temple Ordinances could be just for fun. Christ's atonement and resurrection could be metaphorical. All that stuff could go out the window, and the Church would still be there and you could still be in it as long as you agreed with the claim that person X (right now, President Monson) is God's chosen dude. Once you disagree with that claim, you are in apostasy.

Well, I'll have to simply register my disagreement.

[JangoStango]

Well, I'll have to simply register my disagreement.

I guess you save your substance for the blog.

[Brenda]

Now you can say you have. I am among LDS membership and I doubt a universal flood.

I meant in church. Where are you in church? Why do you keep quiet there, when you're vocal here?

[cinepro]

I meant in church. Where are you in church? Why do you keep quiet there, when you're vocal here?

That's a good question.

One important aspect of my job is quality control. I have to make sure my company is producing a high-quality product. I constantly encourage my employees to be vigilant for errors, and potential improvements.

Should the Church have "quality control" for its teachings and doctrines? Apparently, it is possible for things that are flat-out wrong to be published in Church manuals and magazines. This would indicate a failure in the QC process somewhere along the way. The most obvious course for correction would be for the members of the Church who discover the error to provide their feedback. And what Church doesn't want the Church to be more correct in its teachings?

But for some reason, there is total silence. Global flood disbelievers are in some sort of mental limbo, where they are convinced the Church is publishing an erroneous claim, but they are unable to actually help the Church improve. Instead, they remain silent and express their views on the fringes, content to let new generations of Church members perpetuate an incorrect interpretation of the scriptures.

What an odd situation.

And if we are only guaranteed that the Church is accurately teaching "core" doctrines, or those things that are "necessary" for our salvation, what have we learned from this thread? Can we even say what those "core" things are with any certainty?

[SilverKnight]

What are the non-negotiable, absolutely required things that all LDS must believe in, and about which the teachings of the Prophets and Apostles cannot be in error, and for which lack of belief makes one ineligible for exaltation?

I'm rather fond of the church's lack of a codified creed to use as a wedge between the saved and damned.

Exaltation is a process, not easily redacted to pithy lists.

[val26]

Hi! My name is Val and I was wondering how do you what church you belong to. I'm just so confused.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I guess you save your substance for the blog.

What more can I say? You are a disbeliever who is stating his own opinion. I counter with "I don't agree." We're not solving math equations.

I meant in church. Where are you in church? Why do you keep quiet there, when you're vocal here?

I've talked to people in the Ward about not believing in a global flood during church. I haven't been in a single lesson that has covered the subject at all since I moved to my current Ward more than 2 years ago. When I taught GD in my student ward I talked about local flood stuff as well. I would bring it up with no hesitation.

Hi! My name is Val and I was wondering how do you what church you belong to. I'm just so confused.

Sorry, Val, I do not understand the question.

[groove]

That is a round about way of admitting an "orthodoxy" requirement. A knowledge of the things of God is knowledge of the doctrine.

I don't think it really is in the sense you tend to write about, because we are talking about a very specific kind of experiential knowledge rather than a catalogue of facts. The type of knowledge I am referring to cannot be written, even in books of scripture, but rather it is something written in the heart and soul. You basically have to completely redefine "orthodoxy" to make your claim in any sort of strong sense. Having the "mind of Christ" and knowing about the comandments are two entirely separate things. One can give a wonderful Sunday School lesson all about the principle of charity, but without the transformative influence which only comes by actually practicing charity such an individual does not really know about charity from a divine perspective.

A knowledge of the doctrine makes you more accountable for your behavior. You can't have it both ways. You can't tell people that there are no requirements while adding requirements at the same time. There is no need to sugar coat.

A true knowledge of the doctrine from a gospel perspective is only gained by through the influence of the Holy Ghost and it is those experiences witht the Spirit which make you more accountable for your behavior. Again, this is much more than knowledge about the doctrine, or even a professed belief in the doctrine.

I mentioned what I see as the requirement: which is that the individual couple action with knowledge in that they give place for the word of God, and then act in accordance with the light that they receive. Everything else is gravy. Some have much light and much is expected, some have little light and little is expected.

[cinepro]

I'm rather fond of the church's lack of a codified creed to use as a wedge between the saved and damned.

Exaltation is a process, not easily redacted to pithy lists.

But if we can make a list of things that people have classified as non-essential and non-core (periphery?) doctrines and teachings, wouldn't it be logical to assume that we could also make a list of things that are essential and core-doctrines? Some people seem to have the ability to look at a teaching of the Church and say "Oh, that's not a core-doctrine. LDS aren't required to believe it; it's optional." I am just curious which doctrines those same people look at and say "Ah, yes, that is a core-doctrine, and all LDS are required to believe that."

The FAIRWiki claims that Mormons aren't "required" to believe in the global flood as if that were an important distinction, which makes me wonder what Mormons are "required" to believe in.

[JangoStango]

The FAIRWiki claims that Mormons aren't "required" to believe in the global flood as if that were an important distinction, which makes me wonder what Mormons are "required" to believe in.

Mormons are required to believe President Monson has "authority" from God. Everything else is negotiable.

LifeOnaPlate can disagree... maybe he would say a Mormon also has to believe, for example, in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ. OK. As a test let me ask what would happen if Pres. Monson made this compromise: "Jesus was never really dead and the apostles were wrong in their testimony, but nevertheless there will one-day be a resurrection for all mankind, including Jesus." There would be three choices for Mormons.

1. Think Monson is right whatever he says about the resurrection of JC. You are still Mormon.

2. Think Monson has made a grave mistake but stick with the Church anyways because the authority is still there and will get back on track. You are still Mormon.

3. Think Monson has made a grave mistake and leave the Church for something else that teaches the resurrection of JC. You are not Mormon.

Choices 1 & 2 allow a person to still be a Mormon even though they differ with respect to a core LDS teaching. What 1 & 2 have in common is a respect for Monson's priesthood authority. That is what the restored church boils down to and it is the only non-negotiable belief for Mormons. Other beliefs may seem non-negotiable in current practice, but in theory the definitive Mormon belief is in Monson's priesthood authority.

[pcarthew]

We learn a lot at Church. We learn doctrine. We learn how to store food. Sometimes people say things that are true, sometimes they're mistaken.

In other discussions, people have sometimes explained disagreements over certain teachings (and the suggestion that Church leaders and publications are perpetuating misunderstandings) by explaining that it's OK because certain things aren't "Required beliefs, or necessary for salvation." This would mean there are some things in the Church that are negotiable, and others that are not.

Since I have never seen a comprehensive list of "Required Beliefs, Necessary for Salvation", I thought it would be beneficial to see what people think.

What are the non-negotiable, absolutely required things that all LDS must believe in, and about which the teachings of the Prophets and Apostles cannot be in error, and for which lack of belief makes one ineligible for exaltation?

-------------------------------

Here's my list:

- Everything in the Articles of Faith

- Belief in the Temple Ordinances

I agree with your list, I would add belief in the ordinance of the sacrament too.