Answers To Gospel Problems

[Mike Reed]

The 1978 revelation definitely caught me by surprise. I had thought it was off in the nebulous future, if not the millennium.

I was only three at the time, so I had other things to worry about, like learning the lyrics and hand-gestures to "Popcorn Popping."

[Scott Lloyd]

I was only three at the time, so I had other things to worry about, like learning the lyrics and hand-gestures to "Popcorn Popping."

Such a youngster.

I was attending summer term at BYU, working part time as night editor at the Daily Universe. Of course we put out an "extra" edition that day. The first major adrenaline rush of my career.

[cinepro]

I don't recommend it. It is dated and hardly represents 21st century Mormon thought. Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a much better up-to-date resource. And the good news is that some (or all) of it is available online.

Good news: It's available online.

Bad news: It says this at the beginning...

[Mike Reed]

So it's probably not the "authoritative" source your looking for.

Hey Cinepro.

Authoritative? When you put the word in quotes, who are you quoting? Formerpastor was asking whether AtGQ was "a good source to learn from"? I think EoM is a much better source "to learn from."

[cinepro]

Hey Cinepro.

Authoritative? When you put the word in quotes, who are you quoting? Formerpastor was asking whether AtGQ was "a good source to learn from"? I think EoM is a much better source "to learn from."

That's fair. If someone is seeking an academic source of information about the Church, there are many good books and websites that can help. And The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is very comprehensive and informative on a wide variety of subjects. If something a little less encyclopedic is desired, I would also recommend "Mormonism For Dummies", a particularly good introduction to the Church.

But (as he has found out in the discussion over the "Answers to Gospel Questions" books), if he intends to foster any discussions about the Gospel or the LDS Church, he will find his queries easily dismissed if they aren't from official sources.

Of course, the next step is to find that even the official sources are dismissed when needed, but I didn't want to skip too far ahead.

[Mike Reed]

That's fair. If someone is seeking an academic source of information about the Church, there are many good books and websites that can help. And The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is very comprehensive and informative on a wide variety of subjects. If something a little less encyclopedic is desired, I would also recommend "Mormonism For Dummies", a particularly good introduction to the Church.

Yes. The book is great, as are the authors. Jana is brilliant and down to earth. Chris Bigalow... well... I briefly met him once, but (as I am sure you know) he's hilarious. Sugar Beet is classic!

But (as he has found out in the discussion over the "Answers to Gospel Questions" books), if he intends to foster any discussions about the Gospel or the LDS Church, he will find his queries easily dismissed if they aren't from official sources.

Of course, the next step is to find that even the official sources are dismissed when needed, but I didn't want to skip too far ahead.

Like nailing jello, eh?

[cdowis]

You obviously want to understand our religion. With others who have responded, I suggest that you look at the basics. Check out mormon.org and be sure to listen to General Conference talks this weekend. You will see the practical application of our faith.

[Bsix]

How is it that a man who served as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve for 52 years and then the Presidency, have views that did not represent Mormonism back then or even shared with other apostles and leaders? Who then can you trust to give you the truth? Were his doctrinal views distorted? Why do you say Smith did not really represent Mormonism? I'd be interested to hear your position.

I can't say that I have ever studied "Answers to Gospel Questions" so I don't know what topics President Smith covered. However, it is a pretty safe bet that President Smith is reliable on all of the major doctrines of the LDS Church.

Claims that he was out of sync with the Church are exaggerated and may have more to do with style than substance. Also, he did write in a period in which the the thought and expression on controversial topics may be different than today's style and cultural way of expressing it.

I have been a member of the Church since the mid 70's. Overall, the doctrines of the LDS Church is virturally unchanged. There has been evolution in style, correlation, communication, etc. But the core of the doctrines of the LDS Church remain the same.

I think the suggestion of the LDS Church's Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a good recommendation. It has been created to provide a comprehensive view of Mormonism, it is annotated, and while not OFFICIAL...it is a pretty good look at virtually all things Mormon.

Regards,

Six

[kolipoki09]

Answers to Gospel Questions was certainly dated. Selections from the series became one of the Melchizedek Priesthood study manuals during the 1970's. Nevertheless, a modern, triple-combination printing is available at most LDS bookstores. At times the responses take on a more polemic tone, as illustrated in President Smith's responses toward issues raised by Jehovah's Witnesses. Ultimately, I think the series was not meant to act as a the last word on Gospel Questions per se, but rather point one in the right direction toward finding a sufficient answer. Most of the time, President Smith's comments did precisely that. I see nothing wrong with reading it; however, I think many of the things said in the series should be understood in light of what myself and others have previously mentioned.

[cinepro]

FWIW, Joseph Fielding Smith's grandson, Joseph Fielding McConkie, wrote a follow up/tribute to the original series called "Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions" in 1998. The book carries the banner for JFS and Bruce McConkie in perpetuating their particular brand of anti-evolution gospel understanding.

It appears to be mercifully out of print.