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

[mfbukowski]

This is a very interesting topic and it touches many questions i have myself. For me personally this has to do with wether you have a testimony of things or not. As far as I understand it, having a testimony doesn’t require one to believe anymore, they know it. This is a concept that is still very confusing to me.

I have read that some people have a testimony of the truthfulness of the BoM, but not of other things, for examplte the Word of Wisdom. I find that hard to understand. If you gain a true testimony (after asking for it) of the truthfullness of the BoM, doesn’t that automatically mean that you have a testimonoy of JS being a prophet? And if you have a testimony of that, you automatically have a testimony of the Word of Wisdom, right?

I never understood the concept of having several different testimonies of various parts of the Gospel. Furthermore:

- Do we need a testimony to be saved anyway?

- Is having a testimony a neccasity? If so, which testimony of what?

- Is it required / expected of every member that he someday stay in front of his church and declares “I know”?

- Doesn’t the wish to know if its true show a lack of faith?

- Doesn’t the concept of gaining a testimony eliminate the idea of faith somehow?

These are questions that are on my mind all the time…

When we look at the Index of the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith for example, we read under the topic of “Testimony”: neccesary to be saved. When you read that part however, it is somewhat cryptic because it still talks about having faith. Do you still have faith when you have a testimony?

There are several scriptures that say that those who have “just” faith in other testomonies are even more blessed that those who know.

So do we need to have a testimony / testimonies? Or is it “sufficient enough” to simply keep on believing?

Let me just tell you how it has happened in my life- that's about all I can tell you.

For me, I prayed about the BOM and whether the "church was true" in the sense of "Is this the path I should follow?" and had a very powerful spiritual experience which I have and will treasure for all my life, and never forget nor deny. I can't.

So I saw that as all-inclusive, including the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was in fact the son of God, savior of the world, and the one who redeemed me from my personal sins.

But as I have grown in the gospel, I have had further questions about subsidiary issues which are probably not very important really- and I have prayed about those issues, and in those cases, I have received further witnesses which I see as coming from God, because they could come from no where else, each one being "self-verifying" as being from God because I have "heard" his voice (I know what spiritual verification feels like) much like we know the sound of our earthly father's voice.

So each "little" testimony adds to the bigger one and has continued to do so now for the 33 years I have been a member.

[mfbukowski]

I think you're still not getting what i am trying to ask here in the first place... Don't get me wrong, i appreciate your replies, they just don't help me very much. My questions are pretty straight forward, i dont understand why you won't just answer them.

- Is a testimony (not simply having faith), having something confirmed by the Holy Ghost, neccesary to be saved?

- Why do i need a testimony? To put it simply: I dont need a testimony for myself, i already believe it all. Is that enough?

- Why do people have more than just one Testimony? (one for the BoM, one for the WoW, one for the BoA and so on)

- Doesnt having a testimony of the truthfullness of the BoM give you an automatic Testimony that JS was a prophet? If not, why not?

- Why would you aks the Holy Spirit for another testimony (more testimonies) if you have already gained one?

- Do those who have a Testimony still believe? I mean, they all claim to know. Knowing is more than just believing.

- Doesnt the wish to know show a lack of faith?

I hate to make your life complicated, but unfortunately life IS in fact complicated!

The bottom line is, YOU are the judge of the answer to all those questions. Faith is the substance of things HOPED for, and testimony is a spiritual confirmation of that faith.

Testimony does not teach science- it is in your heart and lets you know what is the right path the Lord wants you to follow.

[mfbukowski]

This is interesting, BC. Do you think most Bishops would handle it that way?

So, you are saying, basically, it is okay to be struggling with your faith, but once that "struggle" becomes solidified into an actual belief that is counter to what is taught as doctrine, that would be the point of a sort of apostasy?

Everyone struggles. But basically I would answer "yes" to that last question. If you have an actual belief opposed to the questions asked in the Temple Recommend interview- so that you would have to answer in opposition to the "correct" answer, then I would say you do not qualify for a TR.

That seems fairly obvious, but it seems that some here don't get that!

On the other hand, you can be a member in good standing even with some limited "disbeliefs"- obviously depending on what beliefs those are- (I would say if you do not believe that Jesus is the redeemer of the world - that would disqualify you)

We had an individual who was baptized and immediately after, moved in with his girlfriend. He did not fully understand the law of chastity. After all, he was in love, and so it was OK, right? Wrong!

He was never given the priesthood, but attends church regularly. He is stuck but progressing very slowing- certainly he is progressing in gospel knowledge and now understands - to a degree- his situation.

Has he had a disciplinary council? No. Why not? Because he only has a limited testimony. It is a shame no one caught that (ie the zone leader) before he was baptized, but he WAS baptized, and now understands the situation, but he cannot decide if he wants to marry her or not.

So often you have to deal with the baggage new members come with, and be understanding. He is receiving more light being a "member" than he would if he were not a member. He is accepted as a member and no one in the ward knows his actual situation, and so it is not causing a "scandal".

If there had been a council, we would probably never see him again because he still doesn't fully comprehend how serious chastity is. So which is better? Should he be "kicked out"?

For the life of me I see no reason why he should be.

[mfbukowski]

My oldest daughter was born when my wife and I were living in West Hollywood.

I'm not sure if that helps my case or not....

Sorry- I couldn't resist that one!

[SamIam]

Libs is not LDS at this point in time. If she finds value in the Book of Mormon and it helps her seek out the Spirit, I don't think the Lord is going to be unhappy if she doesn't view it exactly like most LDS do.

Calmoriah,

Help this make sense. "I think" and “I don’t think” are inadequate qualifiers for the correctness of a perspective. Not even for us personally.

In all things of measurement there has to be a standard by which we define the requirement conditions that indicate compliance to the standard of the measurement.

As an example, clocks all around the world are based on a point relative to Greenwich Village. Because this standard exits, time zones remain a constant in relationship to each other. It can never be 3:00 am in New York at the same time it is 3:00 am in California. Without a standard to measure by, communities all over the world might pick a local standard that had no relationship to one another and a form of chaos would occur. Scheduling of flights and business schedules and a multitude of events would be unnecessarily complicated as everyone had to reconcile to potentially hundreds of locally derived time zones. Fortunately, a worldwide standard has been adopted and sanctioned by all governments and that eliminates to a greater degree conflicts that result from having multiple standards to measure against.

So it is with discussions of theology. If we are going to attempt to reconcile multiple and disparate opinions of thought something must lead out as the standard that defines the proximity of the opinion.

If you establish yourself as the standard for all wisdom in your own mind, then you have accepted a paradigm that is the same as – “hey as for me and my house we’re on the Hawaii time zone - I don’t like the eastern time zone.” ( I haven’t a clue where you really are …just work with me.) The point is if you set your clock by Hawaii time and you live in Virginia, you are going to miss the bus, the plane, and the train. You are going to be late for work, late for dinner, and late for church. You’ll miss your children’s weddings, the doctor’s appointment, and your tanning booth session. But no worries cause these folks are wrong to not be on the Hawaii Time Zone where I’m at.

Give us something from the standard that authorizes or sustains this ambiguous perspective that you have expressed. Take what you have said above and give it something more than you as the self-determining source of correct perceptions. Because if this is the standard then there is no right and no wrong for any of us because we can all claim to make our determinations based upon the same standard as you - our personal hopes and preferences. In which case there can only be chaos. As long as this is your standard then you can never hear any other perspective that opposes your standard to provide for you a measure by which to determine if you are moving forward or backwards because you can stay just right where you are and make no change whatsoever and its all good.

In other words, you write rules for yourself and they fit you but do you fit God. If he is the standard then you have to measure your standard against his to determine if you are going to be on time for the morning of the judgment or whether you just plan on showing up for the evening session.

[Brother Pete]

If you do not know that the Book Of Mormon is true, then you have not listened to the promptings of the Holy Ghost. And I can say, this is a very serious matter! It would do any person well to talk to their bishop if they have any question about the literal and historical truths found in the Book of Mormon.

If, however, you deny the truthfulness of The Book of Mormon after the Holy Ghost has testified of it, then you are in grave peril and must repent. There is no shorter road out of the Church than that of denying the Holy Ghost.

Everlasting,

Brother Pete

[DBMormon]

Ok this needs to stop. We do not allow others to question others faithfulness.

Nemesis

Nemesis, Where are you at in the threads I participate in?

• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  

[Calm]

Nemesis, Where are you at in the threads I participate in?

If you find something you think Nemesis or other mods need to pay attention to, use the report function. It generally works great though sometimes you have to wait for a bit (on weekends especially).

[mfbukowski]

Calmoriah,

Help this make sense. "I think" and “I don’t think” are inadequate qualifiers for the correctness of a perspective. Not even for us personally.

In all things of measurement there has to be a standard by which we define the requirement conditions that indicate compliance to the standard of the measurement.

As an example, clocks all around the world are based on a point relative to Greenwich Village. Because this standard exits, time zones remain a constant in relationship to each other. It can never be 3:00 am in New York at the same time it is 3:00 am in California. Without a standard to measure by, communities all over the world might pick a local standard that had no relationship to one another and a form of chaos would occur. Scheduling of flights and business schedules and a multitude of events would be unnecessarily complicated as everyone had to reconcile to potentially hundreds of locally derived time zones. Fortunately, a worldwide standard has been adopted and sanctioned by all governments and that eliminates to a greater degree conflicts that result from having multiple standards to measure against.

So it is with discussions of theology. If we are going to attempt to reconcile multiple and disparate opinions of thought something must lead out as the standard that defines the proximity of the opinion.

If you establish yourself as the standard for all wisdom in your own mind, then you have accepted a paradigm that is the same as – “hey as for me and my house we’re on the Hawaii time zone - I don’t like the eastern time zone.” ( I haven’t a clue where you really are …just work with me.) The point is if you set your clock by Hawaii time and you live in Virginia, you are going to miss the bus, the plane, and the train. You are going to be late for work, late for dinner, and late for church. You’ll miss your children’s weddings, the doctor’s appointment, and your tanning booth session. But no worries cause these folks are wrong to not be on the Hawaii Time Zone where I’m at.

Give us something from the standard that authorizes or sustains this ambiguous perspective that you have expressed. Take what you have said above and give it something more than you as the self-determining source of correct perceptions. Because if this is the standard then there is no right and no wrong for any of us because we can all claim to make our determinations based upon the same standard as you - our personal hopes and preferences. In which case there can only be chaos. As long as this is your standard then you can never hear any other perspective that opposes your standard to provide for you a measure by which to determine if you are moving forward or backwards because you can stay just right where you are and make no change whatsoever and its all good.

In other words, you write rules for yourself and they fit you but do you fit God. If he is the standard then you have to measure your standard against his to determine if you are going to be on time for the morning of the judgment or whether you just plan on showing up for the evening session.

I am sure Cal's response will blow mine away, but just let me ask when it is 3:00 in California, what time is it on Mars?

The entire question is whether or not arbitrary earth "standards" apply throughout the universe. The universe is what we are discussing in theology, universal standards not our arbitrary standards, and the differences and similarities.

What was God doing "before" he created time? What does that question even mean??

Incidentally, I do believe there are universal standards for all living things especially humans, but those standards are life itself. But that is for another discussion.

PS- I used to live in Greenwich Village and though it was clear that I was at the center of the universe I think you made a small error there! Totally understandable but I had to give you a hard time about it!

Edited May 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

If he is the standard then you have to measure your standard against his to determine if you are going to be on time for the morning of the judgment or whether you just plan on showing up for the evening session.

I suspect (due to what the scriptures themselves teach) that the standard the Lord is concerned about is much more about what we do than what we know and who we love and gather about us than the correctness of theological discourses we've engaged in over the years.

If we are late for judgment because we've stopped by the wayside to help the stranger in need, I doubt that the Lord is going to send us back to the end of the line. However he might if we are late due to choosing to debate whose scripture interpretation is the correct one and refusing to leave until others agreed we were right.

I am sure Cal's response will blow mine away

I doubt it, I am not particularly interested in even discussing the topic of correctness of theology today. Edited May 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

I suspect (due to what the scriptures themselves teach) that the standard the Lord is concerned about is much more about what we do than what we know and who we love and gather about us than the correctness of theological discourses we've engaged in over the years.

If we are late for judgment because we've stopped by the wayside to help the stranger in need, I doubt that the Lord is going to send us back to the end of the line. However he might if we are late due to choosing to debate whose scripture interpretation is the correct one and refusing to leave until others agreed we were right.

I doubt it, I am not particularly interested in even discussing the topic of correctness of theology today.

Sorry, you blew it away anyway.

[BCSpace]

I am against Planned Parenthood as much as anyone but the fact that you could "thrust Planned Parenthood out of our school district's sex eduation program (sic)" indicates to me that you live in a very very conservative area and that your views of what is acceptable to the community at large- including what is proper concerning issues like Prop 8 is vastly different from my community.

One would think everyone, no matter their politcal affiliation, would be against teaching children to experiment with sex. Apparently that is not the case.

The bottom line is that your conservative standards may work where you live, but what you are espousing could not work everywhere, and you should know that.

I do know that. My community is not necessarily conservative. But that does not mean we should not fight for what's right. Being in the world but not of the world does not mean we are to be aloof. We are the salt of the earth.

A little strategy I've learned:

Here, amongst the choir (ostensibly though I sometimes have my doubts), it's easy, appropriate, and correct to make descriptive generalizations. But out in the world, no one likes to be labeled. So instead of approaching it as a Catholic vs Protestant thing or a liberal vs conservative thing, it is good to merely ask the question sometimes rhetorically as I have done above; Should we or do we really approve of such and such? Is such as such right? etc. That gets the mental juices flowing and even those who accept the organization in question will often listen to the evidence.

So yes, we literally thrust them out with their tails between their legs and we did not have to make it a conservative issue or a Catholic issue (the Catholics have all the materials and support one needs ready at hand to combat this evil at stopp.org).

Our main problem in getting families to join the church in our area is that even though they may be great families and have the seeds of a real testimony, 99% of the time the parents are not married. So now the missionaries are in the position of trying to force couples who see no need to be married into getting married- with all the attendant economic, parental and social fallout which goes with that.

And so we who are LDS have very little control over what is taught in schools, and either the children must be home schooled or they must be taught that we are "in the world but not of it".

The doctrine of the Church is the same everywhere.

So just know that your idea that people should be excommunicated for advocating gay marriage might work for your little community, but it certainly does not apply for every community.

It's not my idea and it depends on the circumstances. A clue as to what these circumstances might be are found in the statements given in a link I gave in this thread but unfortunately we cannot speak of such things on this board. The truth will have to be got elsewhere.

Edited May 30, 2012 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

So, for example, one might say in a TR interview, "I struggle with having a testimony of the Restored Gospel". I might say, among other things, well, as long as you're still struggling.....it's all good provided of course they don't have other issues.

This is interesting, BC. Do you think most Bishops would handle it that way?

I know they do.

So, you are saying, basically, it is okay to be struggling with your faith, but once that "struggle" becomes solidified into an actual belief that is counter to what is taught as doctrine, that would be the point of a sort of apostasy?

That is correct. The Church is generally not concerned about nit picky little doctrines in terms apostasy but those dealing with the Restoration (the truth claims of the Church) or the sustaining of the leadership or issues of Chastity and the WoW especially.

To give you an example, lets say someone is strong on evolution or creationism, neither of which is doctrine or conflicts with doctrine but it could be construed by some to be doctrine or in conflict with it. No one even blinks an eye (except some other members who might strongly disagree and we tell them not to worry about it). If said person though has a "gospel hobby" (habitually and consistently brings it up in Church when that's not the subject at hand) we might try having a friend or Priesthood or RS leader speak with that person, to perhaps tone it down a bit if they could. If said person begins to not support or sustain the leadership and/or publically questions the legitimacy of various Priesthood authorities over the issue, that's usually when apostasy is considered.

[BCSpace]

I doubt it, I am not particularly interested in even discussing the topic of correctness of theology today.

Sorry, you blew it away anyway.

The Church is keenly interested in doctrinal correctness especially as it relates to what is being taught. It is a constant drumbeat to the leaders of Stakes and Wards.

Edited May 30, 2012 by BCSpace

[Libs]

Thanks for the information, BC.

So, as far as the topic of this thread, if someone were to say to their Bishop, I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, but I am not sure if the book is true history....that, likely, would not be problematic? But, if that same person said, I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, but I just don't believe it is true history...that would be more problematic, because it was more a statement of fact, than a question one is struggling with? (If I am understanding you correctly)

[Libs]

I suspect (due to what the scriptures themselves teach) that the standard the Lord is concerned about is much more about what we do than what we know and who we love and gather about us than the correctness of theological discourses we've engaged in over the years.

If we are late for judgment because we've stopped by the wayside to help the stranger in need, I doubt that the Lord is going to send us back to the end of the line. However he might if we are late due to choosing to debate whose scripture interpretation is the correct one and refusing to leave until others agreed we were right.

I doubt it, I am not particularly interested in even discussing the topic of correctness of theology today.

You are a woman after my own heart, Calmoriah. A big "Amen" to this post.

[Libs]

The Church is keenly interested in doctrinal correctness especially as it relates to what is being taught. It is a constant drumbeat to the leaders of Stakes and Wards.

I think it is the Church's duty to be keenly interested and aware of what is being taught as official doctrine. That is a part of their job. But, even though they set the bar, there has to be some leniency with membership, who are all learning and growing at different rates... even in leadership, there is always room for improvement and growth (I would think).

Edited May 30, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

My question becomes is it God you are looking for or are you simply looking for yourself? When you first stated that it was Mr. Gordon’s comment that inspired the question and now you explain that he (I hope he is a man…or I’m really messing up this gender thing) never said anything of the sort it makes you wonder. There was no external source for your musings and so they must have come from within.

Sam' date=' your post was a LOT to chew on, but I'll start with this. (I rather like small pieces than big chunks )

First of all, I [i']am interested in a relationship with God.....but, not so sure that doesn't include "finding myself", as well. It may very well.

Secondly, I'm not quite sure where you got the idea that I retracted the OP statement, that I heard from Scott Gordon. His words are on the video I posted. When I said, "I had never heard it before", I meant, I had never heard it from anyone else in the church...this was the first time I had ever heard the statement, "you can believe whatever you want, you just can't teach it". Hope that is more clear..

I really enjoyed reading your stories about the man with the small voice, the match, the lamp, the many doors, etc. I do understand what you are trying to convey, and I appreciate your taking so much time to share all of that. Thank you! I will read it again and if I have anymore comments or questions, will let you know.

[why me]

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:

http://www.mormondia...entry1209119207

The new testament warns that members of the church should be of one mind. And I think that there is a point to that. If all personal beliefs were allowed to be taught, the church would not be of one mind. There would be infighting over whose opinion was correct. The LDS teaches that the book of mormon was a literal history. But of course, people can believe otherwise and still be members in good standing. But they cannot teach that the history is not literal because this would cause conflict within the church body itself.

[why me]

When I said, "I had never heard it before", I meant, I had never heard it from anyone else in the church...this was the first time I had ever heard the statement, "you can believe whatever you want, you just can't teach it".

Scott is not alone in his opinion. I have heard it before and we see members in the church with diverse opinions. After all we do have internet NOM members who still keep their standing in the church even though they may not agree with everything that the church teaches. And most likely a few of them still have temple recommends.

[why me]

But, even though they set the bar, there has to be some leniency with membership, who are all learning and growing at different rates... even in leadership, there is always room for improvement and growth (I would think).

The lds church is not a cult where all must follow lock step behind the leaders. People are allowed leeway in what they personal believe. But to keep the lds church in one mind it is important that conflict be avoided. Also, since the lds church as a prohpet it would be difficult to go against him in matter of belief in public in the church. There would be chaos if every personal opinion was allowed to be taught to the membership.

[why me]

Libs is not LDS at this point in time. If she finds value in the Book of Mormon and it helps her seek out the Spirit, I don't think the Lord is going to be unhappy if she doesn't view it exactly like most LDS do.

This is true. I think that anyone who reads the book of mormon for inspiration or value is not making god unhappy. And it doesn't matter what faith that person has or what faith they belong to. The inspiration can still come as can a feeling by the holy ghost that it is true.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the information, BC.

So, as far as the topic of this thread, if someone were to say to their Bishop, I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, but I am not sure if the book is true history....that, likely, would not be problematic? But, if that same person said, I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, but I just don't believe it is true history...that would be more problematic, because it was more a statement of fact, than a question one is struggling with? (If I am understanding you correctly)

That would be up to the bishop, but the question in the interview does not mention the Book of Mormon- it is about the restoration of the gospel. (post 134)

Edited May 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[SamIam]

PS- I used to live in Greenwich Village and though it was clear that I was at the center of the universe I think you made a small error there! Totally understandable but I had to give you a hard time about it!

Humblest apologies, but I am not following well. Are you saying you lived in Greenwich Village New York or England? and it that what I missed in my post or ?

[Libs]

That would be up to the bishop, but the question in the interview does not mention the Book of Mormon- it is about the restoration of the gospel. (post 134)

Yes, that's true...which is why I was thinking, in the very beginning of this thread, that the question of Book of Mormon historicity would not even come up...so, not really a problem, as far as feeling a need to lie or cover up anything (if one did not believe in the historicity, that is)..