Mormonism 101 Faq On Church Newsroom Website

[why me]

why me:

I'm all for clarifications of doctrine, but lets not get so staid that we loose out on continuing revelation.

I understand what you are saying. And I don't think that this will happen. However, it is good that the lds church is attempting to clarify the issues. I think that it is great that the meetings can be full of opinions, with disagreements and agreements. It shows that people are free to explore beliefs with questions.

And continuing revelation will not lessen this at all nor will a 101 site.

[Scott Lloyd]

For apologists, I respect this point of view. As long as the route leads to having the investigators contact your LDS missionaries, what's the issue in how it's done?

For me it's simply a matter of authenticity and authoritativeness. I want to know first what an institution says about itself before getting a version filtered through someone's attitude or predisposition.

In the case of Mormonism in particular, sometimes even faithful members harbor misconceptions or non-doctrinal notions. If I were a non-member investigator I would want to be able to differentiate those from authoritative teaching.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[blueadept]

For me it's simply a matter of authenticity and authoritativeness. I want to know first what an institution says about itself before getting a version filtered through someone's attitude or predisposition.

LDS seem to make a bigger issue than other faiths.

The RCC believes it's the true church with the proper authenticity and authority but IMO LDS seem to really stress this detail and are amazed when others do not follow the guideline.

My 2 cents

[David T]

I think we're on the cusp of a paring down, and 'de-doctrinization' of many elements of 'authoritative speculation' and tradition are being, piece by piece, peeled away from those things that we do know and have clear, documented revelation on.

I think this is wonderful, because I think, as President Uchtdorf said, "Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?"

As long as speculation and tradition is 'doctrinal', insights won't be sought, because many people feel we 'already have the answer'. I think steps were taken in Gospel Principles 2009, and in the Mormonism 101 to begin towards a process of 'de-doctrinization' of speculation based assumptions and traditions and assertions that have indeed been taught as 'doctrine', mingled with what the scriptures and other facts actually say.

It's actually a great way to decrease inside-the-Church contention, and a way to avoid either "Super Liberal" or "Super Conservative" interpretations as being DE FACTO.

I think this a wonderful indication of the direction we're heading, and perhaps a necessary pre-amble for institutionally receiving further light and knowledge. Baby steps, but toddling in a wonderful direction, IMHO.

Edited March 13, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Calm]

Maxed out on rep points, so will just be able to say I totally agree with your post/

[JDave]

I think we're on the cusp of a paring down, and 'de-doctrinization' of many elements of 'authoritative speculation' and tradition are being, piece by piece, peeled away from those things that we do know and have clear, documented revelation on.

I agree with your post and was thinking while reading it that it seems necessary simply as a reaction to the modern era where every word is stored and everything is searchable with computers. People in 2012 are far more concerned with what Brigham Young said than people in 1950 were. Past leaders were much more open to speculation because they didn't expect it to define church doctrine. That is why quote mining is so much fun the further back you go.

But the modification of Gospel Principles to rely more on scripture and revelation is indicative that the change is broader than simply "be careful with your words".

[Stormy Waters]

Do Latter-day Saints practice polygamy?

No. There are more than 14 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and not one of them is a polygamist.

I think this answer isn't honest. There are living men who are sealed for eternity to multiple women. They are practicing polygamy.

[Pahoran]

I think this answer isn't honest. There are living men who are sealed for eternity to multiple women. They are practicing polygamy.

You ought not to attribute dishonesty when the most likely explanation is a difference in perspective. I think your assertion is misleading at best. To claim that a remarried widower is "practicing polygamy" is to radically redefine polygamy.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Stormy Waters]

You ought not to attribute dishonesty when the most likely explanation is a difference in perspective. I think your assertion is misleading at best. To claim that a remarried widower is "practicing polygamy" is to radically redefine polygamy.

Regards,

Pahoran

The church teaches that members are married for eternity. They teach that marriage lasts even after death. So even after a spouse dies, they are still married. If they choose to marry again, they have multiple wives. They will certainly have all of their wives when they arrive in the celestial kingdom. If this is not the case, then why can't women get married in the temple more than once?

[TAO]

What is the methodology of this poll? Active members only? Internet visitors only? Census? While only anecdotal, I've served in too many wards and stakes (California, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Texas) to change my own approx 50% figure for church attendance in the USA. Specifically sacrament meeting. My own opinion is that those who consistently come to the other blocks but not sacrament, for whatever reason, are not church attenders in the way the LDS Church desires them to be.

Good question. You'd have to look more deeply into it.

[Calm]

The church teaches that members are married for eternity. They teach that marriage lasts even after death. So even after a spouse dies, they are still married. If they choose to marry again, they have multiple wives. They will certainly have all of their wives when they arrive in the celestial kingdom. If this is not the case, then why can't women get married in the temple more than once?

When women are dead, they are sealed to all of their husbands just as men are sealed to all of their wives. I suspect that it won't be long before the practice is the same for men and women in regards to deceased spouses and even possibly divorced spouses (because in reality the covenant between a divorced couple has been broken for both man and woman and it makes logical sense that both should receive a temple cancellation at the time of remarriage, not just the exwife).

If your rationale is that polygamy exists for men because of multiple sealings to dead spouses, then it exists for women as well.

However, plural marriage in the next life says nothing about how they are living in this life. All LDS men living the gospel who are married have one and only one living wife just as all LDS women who are married and living the gospel have one and only one living husband.

Only by creating your own definition of plural marriage can you create a situation where faithful LDS men are polygynous because they have been sealed to a dead spouse as well as having a living wife. Neither legally or religiously by our own faith's definition, can you claim so:

At certain times and for His specific purposes, God, through His prophets, has directed the practice of plural marriage (sometimes called polygamy), which means one man having more than one living wife at the same time.

http://www.lds.org/study/topics/polygamy-plural-marriage?lang=eng&query=plural+marriage

If you continue to insist that plural marriage does exist in the LDS faith in the here and now, you will have joined a long list of critics who prefer to create a strawman of LDS doctrine and beliefs because they are too lazy to deal with the reality. There is more than enough in the reality to criticize if one chooses to, I have no respect for those who want to take short cuts or prefer to shock rather than enlighten.

Edited March 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

Anybody seen this? Thoughts? Could this represent an exciting new development or a start of something great to come?

I'm happy to see the Church explain and clarify it's basic doctrines. But some of the answers strike me as a little too oversimplified. It looks perfect for a brochure. I'd like to see something put out by the Church that addresses the more controversial issues in a detailed way instead of leaving that up to the apologists or the critics.

But this is a start.

I think the Church is following more closely the commandment of the Lord:

D&C 19:

29 And thou shalt declare glad tidings, yea, publish it upon the mountains, and upon every high place, and among every people that thou shalt be permitted to see.

30 And thou shalt do it with all humility, trusting in me, reviling not against revilers.

31 And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost.

[David T]

I think those who say they are doing a 'milk before meat' approach are really saying they feel they are being intentionally misleading, but they feel it's for a good cause.

I don't feel they are hiding anything. They are expressing what we do know. The answers are very honest. While tradition and speculation has had different answers to those questions in years past, the Church is recognizing that is exactrly what they are, and that we don't definitively know that those old assumptions are true.

It's not milk before meat. It's true fortified milk rather than traditional junk food with empty calories. Problem is, many members, through repetition, have come to actually believe that the junk food with empty calories is actually the meat. That's the big problem going on now that I think they're trying to solve bit by bit.

[Senator]

I think the Church is following more closely the commandment of the Lord:

D&C 19:

29 And thou shalt declare glad tidings, yea, publish it upon the mountains, and upon every high place, and among every people that thou shalt be permitted to see.

30 And thou shalt do it with all humility, trusting in me, reviling not against revilers.

31 And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost.

Wow! Great verse Z!

What then shall many LDS apologists do?

[zerinus]

Wow! Great verse Z!

What then shall many LDS apologists do?

Apologetics is not for preaching the gospel, but defending the faith--two different purposes:

D&C 17:

6 For unto him that receiveth it shall be given more abundantly, even power.

7 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.

8 Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.

9 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper;

10 And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.

Everything has its time and place. The purpose of that site was to inform, not do apologetics.

Edited March 14, 2012 by zerinus

[Senator]

Apologetics is not for preaching the gospel, but defending the faith--two different purposes:

D&C 17:

6 For unto him that receiveth it shall be given more abundantly, even power.

7 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.

8 Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.

9 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper;

10 And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.

Everything has its time and place. The purpose of that site was to inform, not do apologetics.

I see.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think we're on the cusp of a paring down, and 'de-doctrinization' of many elements of 'authoritative speculation' and tradition are being, piece by piece, peeled away from those things that we do know and have clear, documented revelation on.

I agree except to say this is not a new thing. It has been going on for quite a while, at least since the advent of the much-maligned priesthood correlation in the 1960s.

[David T]

I agree except to say this is not a new thing. It has been going on for quite a while, at least since the advent of the much-maligned priesthood correlation in the 1960s.

The thing is, I think it's taking it to a further level. I do believe the Correlation effort is a net win, although at times its can be its own worst enemy. I think what we're seeing indications of going on now is revisiting the 'approved correlated' ideas that were left to sit there and be republished without question, and finding out which of those really belong in circulation and the 'pre-approval' list to begin with.

[Scott Lloyd]

The thing is, I think it's taking it to a further level. I do believe the Correlation effort is a net win, although at times its can be its own worst enemy. I think what we're seeing indications of going on now is revisiting the 'approved correlated' ideas that were left to sit there and be republished without question, and finding out which of those really belong in circulation and the 'pre-approval' list to begin with.

There's no question it's an ongoing process, the ideal outcome being greater purity of doctrine. Once in a while, something comes along that requires us to kick it into gear, as it were, compelling us to further re-examine what we thought we knew. As examples, I would include the 1978 revelation on the priesthood and the controversy of the last decade pertaining to DNA and the Book of Mormon. The first instance caused none other than Bruce R. McConkie to urge members to discount what he and others had said in the past on that topic, and the second arguably led to an alteration in the introduction to the Book of Mormon.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[BCSpace]

The thing is, I think it's taking it to a further level. I do believe the Correlation effort is a net win, although at times its can be its own worst enemy. I think what we're seeing indications of going on now is revisiting the 'approved correlated' ideas that were left to sit there and be republished without question, and finding out which of those really belong in circulation and the 'pre-approval' list to begin with.

There's no question it's an ongoing process, the ideal outcome being greater purity of doctrine. Once in a while, something comes along that requires us to kick it into gear, as it were, compelling us to further re-examine what we thought we knew. As examples, I would include the 1978 revelation on the priesthood and the controversy of the last decade pertaining to DNA and the Book of Mormon. The first instance caused none other than Bruce R. McConkie to urge members to discount what he and others had said in the past on that topic, and the second arguably led to an alteration in the introduction to the Book of Mormon.

And yet we often find that when a revision is made, little to nothing changes such as the much ballyhoo'd Gospel Principles manual and the doctrine that God was once a man (which remains). There is a lot of hopefulness that certain doctrines will change, but I doubt there will be much movement on those fronts. The doctrine on the priesthood ban didn't change. Even the change from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors" is no change at all considering what principal means.

It's much better to develop the proper apologetic than to deny the doctrines.

Edited March 14, 2012 by BCSpace

[Calm]

I think those who say they are doing a 'milk before meat' approach are really saying they feel they are being intentionally misleading, but they feel it's for a good cause.

I don't feel they are hiding anything. They are expressing what we do know. The answers are very honest. While tradition and speculation has had different answers to those questions in years past, the Church is recognizing that is exactrly what they are, and that we don't definitively know that those old assumptions are true.

It's not milk before meat. It's true fortified milk rather than traditional junk food with empty calories. Problem is, many members, through repetition, have come to actually believe that the junk food with empty calories is actually the meat. That's the big problem going on now that I think they're trying to solve bit by bit.

Well explained.

[David T]

And yet we often find that when a revision is made, little to nothing changes such as the much ballyhoo'd Gospel Principles manual and the doctrine that God was once a man (which remains). There is a lot of hopefulness that certain doctrines will change, but I doubt there will be much movement on those fronts. The doctrine on the priesthood ban didn't change. Even the change from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors" is no change at all considering what principal means.

It's much better to develop the proper apologetic than to deny the doctrines.

I did the list of every change in Gospel Principles 2009 (see the thread here - formatting is funky, and doesn't look like direct links work anymore, but it's all still there). - And it's true. there are no 'major doctrines' changed, even though some duplicate expressions of some were removed from one chapter or another more for editorial purposes than any other. However, there were several instances of subtle changes in phrasing in order to make something more scripturally accurate, rather than a paraphrase which adds assumptions into it.

The subtlety and re-direction of certain emphases is striking, and fascinating. Generally, they tend to widen interpretive understandings rather than constrict them.

Edited March 14, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Sky]

And yet we often find that when a revision is made, little to nothing changes such as the much ballyhoo'd Gospel Principles manual and the doctrine that God was once a man (which remains). There is a lot of hopefulness that certain doctrines will change, but I doubt there will be much movement on those fronts. The doctrine on the priesthood ban didn't change. Even the change from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors" is no change at all considering what principal means.

It's much better to develop the proper apologetic than to deny the doctrines.

You seem to think that you know more about LDS doctrine than anybody else, BCSpace. But I just want to remind you that just because you say something is doctrine, that that does not necessarily mean that it is. You get some things right, but not everything.

And it’s not about denying doctrines so much as it is about clarifying and separating doctrine from folklore or speculation.

Members’ getting folklore and doctrine mixed up has already caused the Church enough trouble as it is. It’s past time that we do something about this. This is probably one of the reasons why the revised Gospel Principles manual is worded in the most elementary, simplest way possible. We also have a lot of new members recently baptized into the Church, and the last thing their minds need is to be clouded over or confused with decade’s old outdated and erroneous notions.

[Pahoran]

The church teaches that members are married for eternity. They teach that marriage lasts even after death. So even after a spouse dies, they are still married. If they choose to marry again, they have multiple wives. They will certainly have all of their wives when they arrive in the celestial kingdom. If this is not the case, then why can't women get married in the temple more than once?

You are merely attempting to change the subject.

To call a widower who remarries a "polygamist" is to deliberately mislead people who may not know what you are talking about. While we are the only significant group I know of that formally regards marriage as eternal, a lot of people believe or hope that family connections may continue after death. If they remarry after being widowed, does that make them polygamists too?

Polygamy exists when a person has multiple concurrent living spouses. Calling a remarried widower a polygamist is a clearly intentional equivocation that can have no other purpose than to deceive.

You've been found out. I recommend you cut your losses at this point.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Oliverio]

CFR

You are merely attempting to change the subject.

To call a widower who remarries a "polygamist" is to deliberately mislead people who may not know what you are talking about. While we are the only significant group I know of that formally regards marriage as eternal, a lot of people believe or hope that family connections may continue after death. If they remarry after being widowed, does that make them polygamists too?

Polygamy exists when a person has multiple concurrent living spouses. Calling a remarried widower a polygamist is a clearly intentional equivocation that can have no other purpose than to deceive.

You've been found out. I recommend you cut your losses at this point.

Regards,

Pahoran

You are merely attempting to change the subject.

To call a widower who remarries a "polygamist" is to deliberately mislead people who may not know what you are talking about. While we are the only significant group I know of that formally regards marriage as eternal, a lot of people believe or hope that family connections may continue after death. If they remarry after being widowed, does that make them polygamists too?

Polygamy exists when a person has multiple concurrent living spouses. Calling a remarried widower a polygamist is a clearly intentional equivocation that can have no other purpose than to deceive.

You've been found out. I recommend you cut your losses at this point.

Regards,

Pahoran

Why such hostilities? I thought it was a fair and meaningful question.