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

[mfbukowski]

Thanks. I meant to ask that, as well.

Note that I edited that post after you posted this- there's more to that question now.

[BCSpace]

The historicity of the BoM is wrapped up in that question.

Really? I don't see why that would, necessarily hold. One could believe in the Restoration, I think, without having to believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon

Really. The Restoration encompasses a lot of things, the historical presentation of the BoM being one.

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

That question would seem to be more of a catch-all for unorthodox beliefs.

Sure. The non historicity of the BoM is an "unorthodox" beliefs.

But, even so, I do know some active LDS support SS marriage, for example (I saw Steve Young give a public talk on this issue, to our local Americans for the separation of church and state group) and as far as I know he is still a member in good standing. That group and Young's view would certainly "seem" to fall into the category above?

I would agree that would appear to fall in that category. He is not in my jurisdiction and so I can't speak directly to that but I can assure you that anyone publically supporting SS marriage would not be getting a TR in our jurisdiction. It's happened several times already and we've had one excommunication over it recently.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, members in good standing can support same sex marriage though I personally do not.

[Daniel Peterson]

I haven't read through this thread, but here's my general take:

Some critics cannot bring themselves to acknowledge anything good in Mormonism, so it's not surprising that they give this topic a negative spin, too: "You can believe anything you want, but you can't teach it or speak about it." A recipe, they say, for pretense and hypocrisy. A tyrannical joke, permitting no meaningful freedom, constraining real freedom of expression, etc. A hint that the Church is moving in the direction of an ahistorical Book of Mormon, etc.

Well, life is complicated.

But there is no formal Church movement in the direction of an ahistorical Book of Mormon, neither overt nor covert. Certainly the Maxwell Institute isn't (contrary to suggestions from some who know nothing) moving in that direction. And there seems no discernible or significant movement that way among the general membership.

What this informal policy comes down to, it seems to me, is the following: The Church has an obligation to maintain its teachings, to see that the Gospel, as its ordained stewards understand and have received it, is taught in all the congregations and meetings of the Saints, and that things contradictory to the Gospel or even foreign to it are not taught. Not to do so would be to desert their appointed posts as watchmen on the walls of Zion. Thus, public expressions of belief are a matter of interest to Church leaders. But they have no intention of launching an inquisition into the private beliefs of Church members, which, presumably, exist along a broad spectrum (perhaps varying from week to week) from outright faithlessness through casual and anguished agnosticism to, among the vast majority of active Saints, some greater or lesser degree of resolute confidence and commitment. There will be no wiretaps, no opening of private letters, no monitoring of personal emails, no bishop-led seizures of diaries, no network of spies and informants.

This is a good thing, isn't it? I mean, I really fail to see how it's a negative.

We're denounced for being a dictatorial and authoritarian church and we're denounced for not being one.

P.S. Incidentally, the fact that the Church doesn't actively seek out and try to excommunicate those who doubt or disbelieve in the historicity of the Book of Mormon doesn't mean, by a long shot, that the Brethren view that position with equanimity or indifference. The book's historical authenticity is very much the official position of the Church, and I strongly affirm it. But I also don't favor launching a witch hunt to identify those who might have reservations on the matter.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[mfbukowski]

Yes, members in good standing can support same sex marriage though I personally do not.

Let me clarify what I meant. I think that members in good standing opposed prop 8 in California. That is what I meant.

[mfbukowski]

I haven't read through this thread, but here's my general take:

Some critics cannot bring themselves to acknowledge anything good in Mormonism, so it's not surprising that they give this topic a negative spin, too: "You can believe anything you want, but you can't teach it or speak about it." A recipe, they say, for pretense and hypocrisy. A tyrannical joke, permitting no meaningful freedom, constraining real freedom of expression, etc. A hint that the Church is moving in the direction of an ahistorical Book of Mormon, etc.

Well, life is complicated.

But there is no formal Church movement in the direction of an ahistorical Book of Mormon, neither overt nor covert. Certainly the Maxwell Institute isn't (contrary to suggestions from some who know nothing) moving in that direction. And there seems no discernible or significant movement that way among the general membership.

What this informal policy comes down to, it seems to me, is the following: The Church has an obligation to maintain its teachings, to see that the Gospel, as its ordained stewards understand and have received it, is taught in all the congregations and meetings of the Saints, and that things contradictory to the Gospel or even foreign to it are not taught. Not to do so would be to desert their appointed posts as watchmen on the walls of Zion. Thus, public expressions of belief are a matter of interest to Church leaders. But they have no intention of launching an inquisition into the private beliefs of Church members, which, presumably, exist along a broad spectrum (perhaps varying from week to week) from outright faithlessness through casual and anguished agnosticism to, among the vast majority of active Saints, some greater or lesser degree of resolute confidence and commitment. There will be no wiretaps, no opening of private letters, no monitoring of personal emails, no bishop-led seizures of diaries, no network of spies and informants.

This is a good thing, isn't it? I mean, I really fail to see how it's a negative.

We're denounced for being a dictatorial and authoritarian church and we're denounced for not being one.

Agreed.

[BCSpace]

What's Nomism as you understand it

I'll quote directly form the home page of their site:

"New Order Mormons are those who no longer believe some (or much) of the dogma or doctrines of the LDS Church, but who want to maintain membership for cultural, social, or even spiritual reasons. New Order Mormons recognize both good and bad in the Church, and have determined that the Church does not have to be perfect in order to remain useful. New Order Mormons seek the middle way to be Mormon."

and why is that relevant?

Because being worthy to enter the Temple hinges, in part, on belief.

The historicity of the BoM is wrapped up in that question. While I think one can be a little nuanced about it, in general, if I knew one had settled (as opposed to still trying to believe) on the belief that the BoM isn't as JS and the Church report it, I think it unlikely that I would not be signing their recommend.

So if i get the double negative right, you would sign their recommend, right?

I wouldn't sign it if they had settled on the belief that the BoM is not as the Church claims it to be, an ancient record of people who once existed in reality.

I am frankly rather confused by this entire post.

Feel free to ask more questions.

[Libs]

BC, are you a Bishop or have you ever been? Your views seem a little more rigid than those of most Bishops I have ever known. (No offense intended)

I don't really want to turn this thread into a discussion of same sex marriage, but I was under the impression that dissenting views on that subject were being tolerated.

[mfbukowski]

"New Order Mormons are those

Oh that .

I was talking about Nomism.

http://www.jewishenc...es/11582-nomism

Edited May 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[BCSpace]

BC, are you a Bishop or have you ever been?

I am one of six possible callings in a Stake that interviews for TR yes. Edited to add that I have served in those types of positions several times in my life. I try to avoid mentioning it because using that as evidence in a debate is a logical fallacy and I don't want you to believe something merely because I said so. However, sometimes it's good to know where I'm coming from.

Your views seem a little more rigid than those of most Bishops I have ever known. (No offense intended)

None taken. We are as rigid as the Church itself is which is to say as nuanced and flexible as doctrine and policy allows.

I don't really want to turn this thread into a discussion of same sex marriage, but I was under the impression that dissenting views on that subject were being tolerated.

It depends on how it's communicated both in an outside the Church venue. The reality is that being in good standing with the Church does not necessarily equate to being in good standing with God. While some dissenting views are tolerated outside the Church, if brought into a Church venue, they are not tolerated. We have been counseled very very strongly by the regional and area authorities to ensure that the doctrine is taught, especially on issues like these. We have been appraised of situations like Dehlin's.

Edited May 28, 2012 by BCSpace

[Libs]

Well, I would hardly call John Dehlin an active member. I think he is mostly a member in name only (rather like myself). But, Steve Young, on the other hand, is a true believer. He even bore his testimony in that meeting, which was pretty amazing, considering the audience...many atheists and a lot of gays and gay rights advocates. He has a strong testimony of the church, but he is also a strong advocate of separation of church and state (which is a politcal view), and he (and his wife) support SS marriage. He did not seem to believe those two positions were at variance.

Thanks for letting me know where you're coming from.

While some dissenting views are tolerated outside the Church, if brought into a Church venue, they are not tolerated.

That's understandable. I certainly understand the idea of being careful and protective about what is taught in the church. I think it is in line with what Scott Gordon said about believing whatever you want, you just can't "teach it". My original question was more about how one could, practically, maintain a good standing, without having to "lie" about their beliefs.

[Libs]

Oh that .

I was talking about Nomism.

http://www.jewishenc...es/11582-nomism

lol...yes, I looked up "Nomism", as well. I am familiar with New Order Mormon, but for some reason that didn't come to mind.

[BCSpace]

But, Steve Young, on the other hand, is a true believer. He even bore his testimony in that meeting, which was pretty amazing, considering the audience...many atheists and a lot of gays and gay rights advocates. He has a strong testimony of the church, but he is also a strong advocate of separation of church and state (which is a politcal view), and he (and his wife) support SS marriage. He did not seem to believe those two positions were at variance.

I haven't read all this thread but is there a link to a transcript or video of what he said? It would be interesting to see how he walks the line which would be fine indeed. My understanding is his wife made a statement saying her family was in opposition to gay marriage but later corrected it to say Steve himself made no endorsement either way.

That's understandable. I certainly understand the idea of being careful and protective about what is taught in the church. I think it is in line with what Scott Gordon said about believing whatever you want, you just can't "teach it". My original question was more about how one could, practically, maintain a good standing, without having to "lie" about their beliefs.

One can't, even if the Church tolerates it.

[Libs]

I can't seem to find a video or audio (I am not sure it was recorded), but below is a link to the event. It was about two years ago.

http://www.au.org/blogs/in-the-field/orange-county-au-to-discuss-separation-of-church-and-state-a-mormon-perspective

As a side note, Bill Bollard did not attend, because he didn't like the way the event had been advertised. I can't remember his specific complaint, but Karla Westphal did apologize for whatever it was, and expressed regrets that Bollard would not attend. Steve Young, then, carried the whole event. He gave quite a long talk and then took questions from the audience. He was in a position of having to, not only defend his own position, but that of the church, as well. It was very interesting, to say the least. Steve did a good job.

[mfbukowski]

Those with the actual keys to positions of authority, rarely make blanket statements about what they would do in any particular situation regarding any particular member because in such decisions, one is to be guided by the spirit, not pre-determined dogmatic assertions about some hypothetical situation which might come up in an interview about what might or might not be "doctrinal".

And it is certainly not up to us to judge any other member of the church, including public figures, who are not within our personal stewardship.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm a very, very serious political conservative, as a casual skimming through of my blog should make obvious. But I don't for a moment believe that non-conservatives, simply for being non-conservatives, have no place in the Church nor that I have any standing whatsoever to declare them as less in favor with God.

I just want to put that on the record.

.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[BCSpace]

Those with the actual keys to positions of authority, rarely make blanket statements about what they would do in any particular situation regarding any particular member because in such decisions, one is to be guided by the spirit,

Depends on the third item, judgement, below. Names are not mentioned, but examples are often comminucated to the membership either in general (we have a problem with people doing or believing such as such in the Stake) or in specific (not long a ago, a member came into my office and said this). One is not in a leadership position or possibly not attending Church at all if one does not hear that from time to time.

not pre-determined dogmatic assertions about some hypothetical situation which might come up in an interview about what might or might not be "doctrinal".

Yet those with the keys are are instructed on a regular basis in predetermined situations as examples and not made to rely on the CHI alone.

And it is certainly not up to us to judge any other member of the church, including public figures, who are not within our personal stewardship.

Depends on what you mean by judgement. If it means determining what they do or say as being consistent with LDS doctrine or not and chosing whether or not to follow those examples and teaching each others the same, then yes, it is up to us to judge.

As for who belongs in the Church, everyone does because everyone needs the Church for a variety of reasons all having to do with personal salvation. Unless of course, they wilfully lead the members astray.

[Pahoran]

Sounds a lot like Orwellian doublethink to me.

Of course it does -- to you.

But not to anyone who knows what they are talking about.

If you were to tell someone about these unorthodox beliefs while claiming to be a faithful Mormon, that would constitute Orwellian doublespeak as well, would it not?

No.

Regards,

Pahoran

[BCSpace]

As a side note, Bill Bollard did not attend, because he didn't like the way the event had been advertised. I can't remember his specific complaint, but Karla Westphal did apologize for whatever it was, and expressed regrets that Bollard would not attend. Steve Young, then, carried the whole event. He gave quite a long talk and then took questions from the audience. He was in a position of having to, not only defend his own position, but that of the church, as well. It was very interesting, to say the least. Steve did a good job.

Well it's too bad. I'd like to see the arguments made in preparation for a Stake Leadership meeting to review, among other things, this very subject this week. Not Prop 8 specifically but gay marriage and homosexuality in general.

[Libs]

Well it's too bad. I'd like to see the arguments made in preparation for a Stake Leadership meeting to review, among other things, this very subject this week. Not Prop 8 specifically but gay marriage and homosexuality in general.

Steve's basic position on SS marriage very much has to do with his belief in separation of church and state. It's been a long while, since this event took place, so I don't want to misrepresent his views, as my memory of his speech is very faded. But, roughly, he doesn't believe personal religious views should interfere with the rights of others, in a free society, including their right to pursuit of happiness, as long as it is not interfering with the rights of others.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Libs

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

Believe me I'm all for separation of church and state. But the question always arises in that society free how do you prevent religious people from voting?

Edited May 28, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Libs]

I'm a very, very serious political conservative, as a casual skimming through of my blog should make obvious. But I don't for a moment believe that non-conservatives, simply for being non-conservatives, have no place in the Church nor that I have any standing whatsoever to declare them as less in favor with God.

I just want to put that on the record.

.

Thanks, Dr. Peterson. I'm glad to hear that.

I have to say, I have (fairly often) seen LDS members claim that one cannot be a member in good standing AND a liberal....just not possible (claims an LDS friend of mine).

[Libs]

Libs:

Believe me I'm all for separation of church and state. But the question always arises in that society free how do you prevent religious people from voting?

I don't think you can or should. People are certainly free to vote their conscience. I guess it is all in how you define a "separation of church and state". For me, it is allowing people to do things that I might not, personally, approve of, or want to do, myself (within reason, of course...meaning there is no real harm to anyone).

[Libs]

Don't want to get off on politics, either, as I know that is against the rules of the board.

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

Lots depends on what we consider reasonable. Is polygamy among consenting adults reasonable?