You Can Believe Whatever You Want, You Just Can'T Teach It

[Libs]

I just finished listening to Scott Gordon, John Dehlin & Rosemary Avance, participating in a discussion panel at UVU (very interesting discussion, btw). Scott Gordon made a statement that kind of surprised me, and so I wanted to bring it here and see what you all thought about it, and how exactly this might work, in reality.

The statement was, something to the effect that you can believe whatever you want, in the church, you just cannot teach it. He further said, that you can even believe the Book of Mormon is not literal, and still be a member in good standing. I took that to mean you can believe the Book of Mormon is not literal history. This statement caught my interest because my own belief about the Book of Mormon leans in that direction. I do believe the book is inspired, but I'm not sure it is true history.

The problem I see, with holding that kind of view, and maintaining activity in the church is that, if you can hold the view, but not "teach it" (I would assume, not speak it), wouldn't that put one in a position of potentially having to lie? I was trying to remember if there was anything asked in the Temple recommend interview, about the Book of Mormon, that would cause one to have to lie, if their views were a bit unorthodox?

Comments?

Here is a link to the actual discussion:

Edited May 26, 2012 by Libs

[CASteinman]

The statement was, something to the effect that you can believe whatever you want, in the church, you just cannot teach it. He further said, that you can even believe the Book of Mormon is not literal, and still be a member in good standing. I took that to mean you can believe the Book of Mormon is not literal history. This statement caught my interest because my own belief about the Book of Mormon leans in that direction. I do believe the book is inspired, but I'm not sure it is true history.

I have known people who did not believe it was a literal history and yet they were good members of the Church and good followers of God. So that is not necessary.

As you point out, it is a bit confusing though. He is right, you cannot teach heterodox beliefs. You can believe whatever you want but do not teach them. You do not have to lie though. If you are asked what you believe, I don't think you will be in trouble for answering without taking it to a level of teaching it.

P.S. Remember, Jesus prayed and blessed not just those who know for themselves that something is true, but also for those who simply believe on their words, without knowing.

Edited May 26, 2012 by CASteinman

[CA Steve]

There are a lot of things that members may believe, there are only a few they must believe.

[Libs]

I have known people who did not believe it was a literal history and yet they were good members of the Church and good followers of God. So that is not necessary.

Well, that's interesting. I have never known an active member who admitted that they didn't believe the Book of Mormon was literal history....but, on reflection, perhaps, they were just not saying so. Or, maybe, that is very rare belief for an active LDS to hold?

I was wondering what such a person would do, if they were asked to teach a class or give a talk on the Book of Mormon? How would you handle that? Just decline?

Edited May 26, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

There are a lot of things that members may believe, there are only a few they must believe.

What are the "musts", in your opinion?

[CA Steve]

What are the "musts", in your opinion?

IMO, faith in Christ and his sacrifice, plan of salvation, baptism. Maybe more, but all I can think of atm.

[Libs]

IMO, faith in Christ and his sacrifice, plan of salvation, baptism. Maybe more, but all I can think of atm.

Okay, thanks.

How about the belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet?

Edited May 26, 2012 by Libs

[bluebell]

I don't think such people would have to lie in order to good members-i don't think that the rule about not teaching means not speaking.

I don't think the issue is with knowing you believe different things, but that you can't try and convince other people that your unorthodox beliefs are the correct ones and the church's teachings are wrong. I think that's why you can believe what you want in the church but not teach it. Teaching is generally seen as an attempt to present evidence about why something is true. You can have a belief and express it without doing that.

[ERayR]

For those who have a problem with Book of Mormon historicity do you also have the same problem with Old and New Testiment historicity? I have more problems reconciling the Bibles historicity than the BoM.

Edited May 26, 2012 by ERayR

[Libs]

I don't think such people would have to lie in order to good members-i don't think that the rule about not teaching means not speaking.

I don't think the issue is with knowing you believe different things, but that you can't try and convince other people that your unorthodox beliefs are the correct ones and the church's teachings are wrong. I think that's why you can believe what you want in the church but not teach it. Teaching is generally seen as an attempt to present evidence about why something is true. You can have a belief and express it without doing that.

Yes, I see what you're saying. Somehow, I cannot imagine expressing that view in a Gospel Doctrine class, without raising some eyebrows. And, perhaps, it would not even be appropriate to do so. I wouldn't even attempt it. But, along that line, I was also wondering what one would do, if they do keep quiet, and everyone assumes they believe, as the church teaches, and are then asked to teach or give a talk on that subject?

[Libs]

For those who have a problem with Book of Mormon historicity do you also have the same problem with Old and New Testiment historicity? I have more problems with the

Bibles historicity than the BoM.

Yes, I do, actually. Especially, parts of the Old Testament. Not just the historicity, but I have a difficult time believing some of it was actually from God. Some parts (like God telling Israel to kill whole nations, right down to their animals) seems more from man, than from God. I also believe the creation story is probably allegory. There are also questions about the flood and whether or not Egypt actually held thousands (millions?) of Israelite slaves. There seems to be little evidence for either of those.

So, yeah, I have the same questions, in regards to the Bible.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Libs

[Sophocles]

The Church also discourages sharing past transgressions. At least, teachers and missionaries are instructed not to do so.

Maybe keeping your heterodox beliefs to yourself is kind of the same thing.

[Garden Girl]

Hello Libs...

I just gave a fairly detailed answer to this very interesting question, expressing my view... but I guess I took too long because this blinkety-blank board didn't print it but gave me that "checking my browser" and when it does that it doesn't print the post... Grrrr.

Well, what I said was that I didn't see how someone could "believe whatever they wanted" and still be a faithful member... they might still come to Church and agree with some things. While I am orthodox in my doctrinal views, there are certain details where I differ from others here, the latest being in the creation of spirits. I also differ from some previous Church leaders on their view of the age of the earth, etc, unless I'm misunderstanding their p.o.v.

When it comes to the BoM, it is such an intricate part of our faith, and of Joseph's prophetic calling, I find it difficult to not accept it as historical and still be a faithful member. In fact, when I was a 17-year old seminary student I accepted Moroni's challenge and received a very strong witness that the BoM was true... and that stayed with me through many years of being inactive.

So, I believe in the BoM, the Plan of Salvation, the AoF, our full canon of scripture (including the D&C revelations relating to the temple). I may differ somewhat in the details of certain things including some things in the Bible that I believe are symbolic or allegory, but still remain orthodox in the basics of LDS theology, otherwise, what's the point?.

GG

Edited May 26, 2012 by Garden Girl

[Libs]

Hello Libs...

I just gave a fairly detailed answer to this very interesting question, expressing my view... but I guess I took too long because this blinkety-blank board didn't print it but gave me that "checking my browser" and when it does that it doesn't print the post... Grrrr.

Well, what I said was that I didn't see how someone could "believe whatever they wanted" and still be a faithful member... they might still come to Church and agree with some things. While I am orthodox in my doctrinal views, there are certain details where I differ from others here, the latest being in the creation of spirits. I also differ from some previous Church leaders on their view of the age of the earth, etc, unless I'm misunderstanding their p.o.v.

When it comes to the BoM, it is such an intricate part of our faith, and of Joseph's prophetic calling, I find it difficult to not accept it as historical and still be a faithful member. In fact, when I was a 17-year old seminary student I accepted Moroni's challenge and received a very strong witness that the BoM was true... and that stayed with me through many years of being inactive.

So, I believe in the BoM, the Plan of Salvation, the AoF, our full canon of scripture (including the D&C revelations relating to the temple). I may differ somewhat in the details of certain things including some things in the Bible that I believe are symbolic or allegory, but still remain orthodox in the basics of LDS theology, otherwise, what's the point?.

GG

Hi Garden Girl...

So sorry you lost your long post! I have had that happen, as well. I don't like that "checking your browser" thing. It really has slowed the board down. I now save all of my posts, before I try and post it...especially, if it's a long post.

Even though Scott Gordon said, "you can believe anything you want", I doubt he actually meant "anything", because I can think of a lot of things that might prohibit "good standing" in the church. Specifically, things that are asked at baptism and in a Temple interview.

As for having a testimony, I always said, I had a testimony of the Book of Mormon (and I still do, of sorts), but I never had a specific testimony of Joseph Smith, as a prophet, or the Restoration, in general. I did assume those things were true, because I knew that (at least, some of) the Book of Mormon was inspired. At this point, I just take what is good from it, and leave the rest (the things I had difficulty with...like polygamy and such).

[CASteinman]

I was wondering what such a person would do, if they were asked to teach a class or give a talk on the Book of Mormon? How would you handle that? Just decline?

I know a person who taught it exactly as it read. He did not believe it was a literal history but he believed we were supposed to treat it as one. He believed it was divinely inspired to help us and was also a sort of testimony to Joseph Smith and though it did not literally happen, the only way to get the meat of the meaning was to read it as though it did. In a way, he read it as a holy fiction of sorts.

I did not agree with him on any of this btw. I believe it did happen -- although I would not be horrified or shocked to find it did not happen EXACTLY as described.

[Libs]

I may differ somewhat in the details of certain things including some things in the Bible that I believe are symbolic or allegory, but still remain orthodox in the basics of LDS theology, otherwise, what's the point?.

Yes, I think one can be so far removed from the actual teachings, as to make membership, in good standing, an impossibility. I think, that's what happened to John Dehlin..and he mentions, briefly, in that talk, that holding unorthodox beliefs is a "hard road".

Edited May 26, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

I know a person who taught it exactly as it read. He did not believe it was a literal history but he believed we were supposed to treat it as one. He believed it was divinely inspired to help us and was also a sort of testimony to Joseph Smith and though it did not literally happen, the only way to get the meat of the meaning was to read it as though it did. In a way, he read it as a holy fiction of sorts.

I did not agree with him on any of this btw. I believe it did happen -- although I would not be horrified or shocked to find it did not happen EXACTLY as described.

But, what about, if it didn't happen at all, and really was just "Holy fiction"?

Dr. Peterson made a good point, about this, along time ago, when I was asking why one could not just believe that the Book of Mormon was an inspired fictional writing. He said, that would mean the Book of Mormon could not be considered a literal witness of Jesus Christ...which is one of the main claims of this book. It is considered, literally, another testament of Jesus Christ.

[CASteinman]

What are the "musts", in your opinion?

I almost thought -- this is an excellent question -deserves its own thread. Until I thought it over. I really would not want to encourage someone to be the very weakest possible member that they could be and barely squeek by. But maybe that's all some people can muster? I would rather express a larger challenge any any case.

However, I think that if you do not want to attend the temple, the musts are very trivial. To be a "Good Member" one would merely have to attend your meetings, pay tithing and avoid any serious sins. I'm not sure you would even have to believe in God. It would be a very minimalist kind of membership -- and yet you would still be a "Good Member".

There is no such minimal standard when it comes to achieving approval from God. You must measure up to your better self.

[cdowis]

A good rule of thumb regarding holding beliefs is that if one can hold a temple recommend having given truthful answers to the interview, they are members in good standing. However, if they teach unorthodox (false) doctrines and attempt to convert others to those doctrines, they will probably find themselves in a church court if they refuse to cease and desist.

The nature of Godhood and one's calling and election sure are two specific areas where one must be very careful.

[CASteinman]

But, what about, if it didn't happen at all, and really was just "Holy fiction"?

Dr. Peterson made a good point, about this, along time ago, when I was asking why one could not just believe that the Book of Mormon was an inspired fictional writing. He said, that would mean the Book of Mormon could not be considered a literal witness of Jesus Christ...which is one of the main claims of this book. It is considered, literally, another testament of Jesus Christ.

I do not know what to say if it was holy fiction. I believe it is an account of things that really happened. I agree with Dr. Peterson.

[Libs]

I almost thought -- this is an excellent question -deserves its own thread. Until I thought it over. I really would not want to encourage someone to be the very weakest possible member that they could be and barely squeek by. But maybe that's all some people can muster? I would rather express a larger challenge any any case.

However, I think that if you do not want to attend the temple, the musts are very trivial. To be a "Good Member" one would merely have to attend your meetings, pay tithing and avoid any serious sins. I'm not sure you would even have to believe in God. It would be a very minimalist kind of membership -- and yet you would still be a "Good Member".

There is no such minimal standard when it comes to achieving approval from God. You must measure up to your better self.

I was thinking about the part of your statement that I bolded, above, as well. It's kind of like asking, what is the very least I can believe/do, to be a member of this church. I don't like that, either. But, on the other hand, some can only do what they can do...and, in regards to your last sentence, we are, supposedly, judged according to the light we hold. So, God may not have a "minimal standard", but I think he does judge on a sliding scale, according to what we are given and what we have the ability to understand.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Libs

[SamIam]

He further said, that you can even believe the Book of Mormon is not literal, and still be a member in good standing. I took that to mean you can believe the Book of Mormon is not literal history. This statement caught my interest because my own belief about the Book of Mormon leans in that direction. I do believe the book is inspired, but I'm not sure it is true history.

The problem I see, with holding that kind of view, and maintaining activity in the church is that, if you can hold the view, but not "teach it" (I would assume, not speak it), wouldn't that put one in a position of potentially having to lie?

While I am not sure to what extreme you wish to take this discussion I will use the same example that you have shared for my comments – the Book of Mormon as a literal or figurative work and your perceptions of it. While clearly, virtually every subject in scripture is subject to private interpretation – that is precisely the problem.

We often make observations about this or that in the gospel not understanding the implications of the very assessment we make – for clarity this is making an observation in ignorance. We don’t know, and I do mean “know” as in the fact of something as God’s intends it to be understood. In our rush to ascribe meanings of significance (we hate to feel ignorant for very long - it is sooo humiliating) However, having made our assessment in ignorance for some reason our future approaches to the subject frequently find ourselves building on our original assessment made in ignorance as if it somehow merits further considerations that can validate just how ignorant our observations were.

When we should hold off on our own perceptions of truth and submit them to the techniques that God requires for learning his expectations of our understandings, we instead so very often charge forward as if our own sentience is adequate force to discern eternal merit.

I’m not intending to pick on your approach but that it is presented as the point of reference and I couldn’t hope for a finer illustration of why we should not teach a lie. I believe that you have written something that is consistent with how you view your responsibility to understanding truth. So, lets examine your own words. You stated that you heard Mr. Gordon state something to the effect of; “you can even believe the Book of Mormon is not literal, and still be a member in good standing”. To you, what Mr. Gordon stated when brought through the filter of “my own belief” as you describe it in your own words, was able to be conformed to a preconceived notion of personal interpretation because “my own belief about the Book of Mormon leans in that direction.”

“Leanings” could never be construed as inspired knowledge, “My own leanings” could never be anything more than a concept that you should never present to anybody other than in private discussions amongst friends or such because as you so correctly surmise that would “put one in a position of potentially having to lie?” However, the lie is opposite, I believe of what you think you would be lying about. Even if you guessed correctly and your filtered take on Mr. Gordon’s comments was perfectly consistent with what God intended, you would still be telling a lie; because you don’t know. You’re guessing. And even if you managed a correct “leaning” how many more leanings would you now feel encouraged to share – that‘s what makes it a lie. You don’t know the truth of the matter. Truth is very very stable and doesn’t lean to the right or to the left.

You’re feeling your way around in a dark room and you have grasped something that feels like it might open a door and let in some light. You don’t know if it leads to the light but you have “leanings” about how doors work. There are other people in the room with you all equally confounded by the darkness and you yell, “Hey everyone I found the door, quick come on over here”. There is this one quiet little voice on the far side opposite the door that says – “I’d be more careful.” But hey what does he know…So together with your new found group of supporters you start working the door. Finally, it gives a little and then pitches forth and in the glare of the light the lot of you takes 10 or so steps forward into the open area before you. The door slams shut and in a few seconds, say 10 or 15, you now can see, your eyes having adjusted to what turns out is not so bright a light after all.

First looking back to the door you realize it doesn’t have an outside handle. Turning back, what you see is not what you thought and now you realize that you and the others are standing on an unstable platform with no sides 30 feet in the air over a huge pond of upward looking alligators and, at this point, they alone are pleased with your “leanings”, cause they haven’t eaten for a while and lunch is looking pretty good today. Startled, one of the jumpy members of your support group, hurriedly jerks in alarm and bumps a person that was too close to that edge. In seconds hitting the water, the quiet of the anticipation of the gators is now deafening commotion as the first one of your little group is lost, the appetizers are served.

Now you remember the quiet little voice of the guy in the room and you realize he’s the only hope you have of getting out of here. Do you ask him? Or maybe you have some leanings about jumping to the safety of that bunch of tall brown dry grass over there in the little copse of trees a little ways out. Preparing to leap you lean back on your haunches … wait is that a tail swishing at the edge of the little clearing leading to this little copse of grass– nah it’s just grass… go for it.

A story sure, but this is why if you do not have the spirit you do not teach. You can’t possibly hope to guess right and not put others at risk because of unsubstantiated “leanings”. At the least, I suspect that Mr. Gordon is trying to issue a gentle warning more than align with “leanings”. Perhaps more he is stating that one does not have to be perfect in knowledge to remain a member in good standing.

A little more and I will end. Your leanings concerning the book of Mormon could be interpreted a number of ways. Some might figure that since it is figurative the participants in the story aren’t necessarily real either. I mean really, angels talking to Laman and Lemuel, Alma having a vision of the souls of those tossed in the burning fire being received into eternal reward, Mosiah being able to predict where an army is going to show up, even a story about Christ coming down from heaven and visiting some remnants of a mass destruction that we really can’t be positive occurred anyway could all be figurative. Of course once this ball gets rolling, there is always the I didn’t mean that- or - no no that part’s not figurative – backtracking so as not to appear to diminish the sacred intent.

Your leanings undermine the statements of Joseph Smith that he was taught personally by some of those participants in your figurative story. They undermine the testimonies of saints that gave their lives in defense of the spiritual truths they had confirmed to them by the spirit. Leanings undermines prophets and apostles that use the stories contained in the Book of Mormon to illustrate gospel truths. I assure you none of these thought of think the Book of Mormon is or was a figurative record.

As a rule it is a much safer and I might add correct, statement to indicate the record is literal. Points of doctrine are couched figuratively in the literal message but the foundation is that it is an actual record of an actual people that were brought across an actual ocean in actual vessels and they may have actually eaten refried beans. – Well that last phrase could be figurative I guess… I find that most often when people want to go with figurative “leanings” it is because we are short on proof. Since we are having trouble finding the types of evidence that satisfy the intellectual necessity, and we want to remain “members in good standing” we feel obligated to cushion our own lack of knowledge and the doubts that lack of knowledge sustains with the unspoken half of the I think it might be figurative statement – the unspoken half being, I don’t have any proof.

I feel you can teach anything found in scripture if you understand it as it within the spectrum of meaning that was intended by God for it to be understood. Elaboration can be an entirely different issue but it is not the same as revealing new doctrine such as God has a body of flesh and bone such as Joseph taught, as to say that the typical understandings of the word “perfection” as used in the scriptures is greatly misunderstood. To elaborate and use the scriptures to define the scriptures one can build an entirely more accurate perception of the word perfect or perfection in a way that is new to the listeners and yet is not new doctrine. Additionally, I can teach some things to one group that I might not teach to another if the spirit respects the venue. I can teach the truth that the current theory of black holes in space bending light by virtue of its gravitational force is beyond doubt absolutely false to a group of LDS physicists. However, I wouldn’t go there in a gospel doctrine class.

I sustain your concern. Don’t teach lies to people about the church nor should you ever pass off leanings as having any merit what-so-ever.

Again, yours was simply the example to pivot from and I mean nothing personal at all but it provided an excellent reference point to point out the insidious nature of "leanings" and presumptions of the figurative nature of the Book of Mormon.

In the words of Forest Gump: That's all I have to say about that.

Brock Lenox

Edited May 26, 2012 by SamIam

[CASteinman]

I was thinking about the part of your statement that I bolded, above, as well. It's kind of like asking, what is the very least I can believe/do, to be a member of this church. I don't like that, either. But, on the other hand, some can only do what they can do...and, in regards to your last sentence, we are, supposedly, judged according to the light we hold. So, God may not have a "minimal standard", but I think he does judge on a sliding scale, according to what we are given and what we have the abiltiy to understand.

Your comment made me laugh. I agree that God will judge us in the most generous and fairest way possible. We must live up to our best selves, but we do not all have equal capacity or light.

Again.. look at the Prayer of Christ.

They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

[Libs]

Your comment made me laugh. I agree that God will judge us in the most generous and fairest way possible. We must live up to our best selves, but we do not all have equal capacity or light.

Well, you said that a lot better than I did! lol

Again.. look at the Prayer of Christ.

They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

This is beautiful (from John). I do certainly believe that we must embrace the truthfulness of God's word (when we recognize it as God's word)...but, I don't think we need to believe it (all of it) as actual history, in order to perceive the truth of the spiritual message in it.

In regards to acting as a testament of Christ, though, I do understand that would have to be considered literal history, in order to be of real value.

[ERayR]

But, what about, if it didn't happen at all, and really was just "Holy fiction"?

Dr. Peterson made a good point, about this, along time ago, when I was asking why one could not just believe that the Book of Mormon was an inspired fictional writing. He said, that would mean the Book of Mormon could not be considered a literal witness of Jesus Christ...which is one of the main claims of this book. It is considered, literally, another testament of Jesus Christ.

If it didn't happen and was "holy fiction" then the atonement must also be "holy fiction" and I should just have spent my time in more raucous persuits. However, I have received assurance that it is not fiction. I do beleive we tend to read present day context into ancient settings which tends to cause us some grief.