In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[mfbukowski]

I find it intriguing too. He may be overreaching a bit, but there is a lot of use in this line of discussion, I think.

The more I think about it, the more I think Ostler is mistaken.

Some fundamental "doctrines": That God has a body of flesh and bones, that Adam and Eve chose what God wanted them to do, that the Godhead is one in purpose, consisting of three separate persons, the reality of the virgin birth of the savior who is the son of God and God himself; that there are 3 kingdoms of glory and that attaining the highest degree of the celestial kingdom brings exaltation; that the priesthood is restored, and many others.

I suppose one would not be excommunicated for believing otherwise on any of these, but certainly if one persisted in teaching that these ideas were wrong, one might be excommunicated, and yet only one of these is "going against" priesthood authority, and none can be construed as "political".

I once visited a ward where someone who clearly was a regular member of the ward stood up and said that the Book of Mormon was not the word of God. I was somewhat shocked- this was an elderly lady whom you would never mistake for an "anti". I mentioned it to one of the ward members afterward and he said "Oh- she's been saying that for years- we just know that's the way she is. She just has a problem with the Book of Mormon, that's all-- We love her anyway".

[Hyrum Page]

I suppose one would not be excommunicated for believing otherwise on any of these, but certainly if one persisted in teaching that these ideas were wrong, one might be excommunicated, and yet only one of these is "going against" priesthood authority, and none can be construed as "political".

Clearly he has adopted an idiosyncratic definition of doctrine in that piece. It seems to be formulated on analogy with Christian creedal statements and the like. My guess is that he would say that the issue of what can be said in public is political, but that what one says in a temple recommend interview is actually determinative. The questions of the recommend interview are not specific and do not deal with a systematic formulation of doctrine. One might believe a number of things about the precise nature of God and still answer both satisfactorily and honestly. I like his approach, especially since it accords so well with early statements by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

[mfbukowski]

Clearly he has adopted an idiosyncratic definition of doctrine in that piece. It seems to be formulated on analogy with Christian creedal statements and the like. My guess is that he would say that the issue of what can be said in public is political, but that what one says in a temple recommend interview is actually determinative. The questions of the recommend interview are not specific and do not deal with a systematic formulation of doctrine. One might believe a number of things about the precise nature of God and still answer both satisfactorily and honestly. I like his approach, especially since it accords so well with early statements by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

I think you are right, and that's kind of the way I took it- it is an interesting approach, but I agree the word "doctrine" is not really used in a normal sense. I think he is right though that we are more interested in "becoming" than "belief", and what really counts seems to be the practice of Mormonism.

But the Book of Mormon as being scripture seems like a defining belief, as does the nature of the Godhead etc. It would be hard to call yourself "Mormon" I think unless you believed in the physical nature of God and in the restoration, though if you picked and chose the right beliefs I suppose you could get a recommend.

But practically, would you pay tithing to a church which believed in a totally different concept of God than you do?

Tithing I think is the guarantee that in addition to your practice, your beliefs will also be pretty much in line.

[Scott Lloyd]

LOL. That's a good one Scott. Let it never be said that you are not a generous soul. You crack me up.

The apparent good humor with which Hyrum Page/Trevor received my jest turns out to be a veneer. On the other board he frequents, he writes:

[scott Lloyd] was implying, of course, that critics cannot be right about the LDS Church (and I would add because they are wrong about the LDS Church in the fact that they are not members, not faithful members, or not loyal members).

Actually, if there was an implied message in my quip, it was that if a person is wrong, he's wrong, regardless of how he might differ in his errancy from someone else who is wrong.