Should The Church Correct Those Who Have An Incorrect Understanding Of Gospel Subjects?

[ksfisher]

well some seem to think so....to the point that it can't be taught in a church setting...if it is...it shouldn't be taught...if it isn't then why not use it in a lesson

What we teach in school is our best understanding of how the earth was created. This understanding will be modified when we learn more. God expects us to use our brains and figure things out.

What we teach in church is why God created the earth. God has not revealed the exact process. What we teach is symbolic of the process that God used. God expects us to learn and grow and in time He will reveal more.

It's not that the two conflict, but that there are two different purposes at work. In school we learn the science of creation. In church we learn the gospel.

[cinepro]

The Brethren, and the manual itself explicitly says not to go off on tangential subjects.

If, as Elder Nelson says, the Creation is a "crucial component of the plan of salvation", how could it be considered "tangential" to discuss the method of creation and such things as whether or not there was, in fact, physical death before the fall of Adam?

[BCSpace]

In light of such a wide and often conflicting belief spectrum within Mormonism, does the church owe it to its membership to provide some clarity?

Yes. To that effect, they have established a clear definition of doctrine; publication.

Certainly God's church is a house of order and not confusion. Should such diversity of beliefs exit in the church?

Most people seem to be on the same page. There are plenty of areas for which there is no doctrine and a variety views on how to handle those areas. Not a problem.

Should the church correct those who have an incorrect understanding?

Most correction is by self or referrential (to an official publication). We do correct from time to time as questions come up the line and answers come back down if they go above us. The teacher on the spot is the first in line, then the SS President, RS President, or Priesthood leader, and their counselors. Then the Bishop and then the Stake President who are responsible for the doctrines taught in their wards and stakes.

[BCSpace]

how could it be considered "tangential" to discuss the method of creation

Because not enough details are given though one could certainly discuss the few that are.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It really all depends on what the prevailing orthodoxy is. For example, six months ago in my ward Gospel Doctrine class the teacher referenced Glenn Beck, something he said, and an approving murmur rose up from the class signaling assent--or so it seemed to me. Nobody except me, it appeared, was bothered by the five minutes or so the teacher then spent in talking about what Glenn Beck said.

Why? Because Glenn Beck is part of the prevailing orthodoxy of this particular ward.

I would be careful when bringing up Glenn's name. He tends to become the topic when he should not be.

[ksfisher]

If, as Elder Nelson says, the Creation is a "crucial component of the plan of salvation", how could it be considered "tangential" to discuss the method of creation and such things as whether or not there was, in fact, physical death before the fall of Adam?

Helping a widowed sister take care of her yard is important and part of the gospel.

The size of the yard, what type of lawn mower was used, whether the digging was done with a spade or a shovel, may be interesting to those who find that kind of thing interesting, but it isn't part of the gospel.

In the same vein, that God created the earth and why he created the earth is important and essential to know. The details of how he did it are very interesting, but not really pertinent to our salvation.

Edited June 18, 2012 by ksfisher

[Darren10]

So since there is no official stance or position on how the creation actually took place I should be fine teaching a Sunday School class of teens about evolution as a more than likely explanation of how God created life?

Sure but remember that in a Sunday School setting, your primary job will be to teach the doctrines we do have on te creation (or any other subject). So, if you a) feel compelled by the Spirit to do so; and not just a desire to aggrandize yourself and to boast of your own learning and b) coordinate that with the doctrines we do have. With the doctrine we do have, I'll argue, teaching evolution as being the most likely way God created man would be difficult. But you do not have to search hard to find BYU professors who wholeheartedly advocated evolution as the means of creation buti n a Sunday School setting it may be more appropriate to simply state that *you think* evolution is the way God created man. Under these conditions I see no problem wth teaching evolution in a Sunday School setting.

And I could also teach them that there was death prior to the fall despite the churches stance that there was no death? Right?

(Bold mine)

I think you just answered your own question. As I said, teaching evolution is more difficult in a Sunday School stetting since it is difficult to cooborate that with the doctrines we do have on the creation. Besides, there is no problem in teaching evolution where one species evolved into another but none died until after the fall. As difficult as this may seem for others to believe, you can teach that under the conditions I outlined above. To note (and this is a tangent which I'll get off of quickly), I do not believe in macro evolution. Micro evolution, yes. But not macro (cross species evolution). This is mainly due to the utter lac of evidence of connecting species. The way I see it, if macro evolution were as absolutely true as some belivers of it claim than there should be a clear fossil connection between the species. But instead of dicvoering these fossils, new species are discovered all the time and every year. The evidence seems to point to a different mode of creation. that of a rapid creation.

I mean since there is no official stance on these and other topics…and I can believe what I want to believe…I should be completely safe to share my thoughts and beliefs with these teens right? If not why not?

Key part of this is *your* thoughts and *your* opinions. If this is what these teens understand and under the above outlined conditions, than why not?

(Note, I think it's becoming clear as to why you may have been counseled to keep your mouth closed in Church. But thus far that's just a guess on my part.)

[Darren10]

It appears that you want to have it both ways...we are free to believe whatever hasn't been nailed down we want...just don't share it. All I'm suggesting in my OP is that some clarity would be helpful. If members fell free to share there various beliefs...it would go a long way to actually fix this problem...then some clarification could take place.

Let me amend my previous guess on your counsel to say that now it seems clearer as to what you mean by saying you were once told to shut your mouth in church. It seems that you are one to teach things that you think are true to others but in a church setting your primary job is to teach others the doctrines we do have. We do not have a doctrine on evolution anda doctrine on "creationism". We nly have the doctrines of creation primarily in the Book of Genesis, Book of Abraham, and the Book of Moses. Teaching Sunday School is not about what Craig Paxton thinks others should learn but wat the Lord thinks they should learn. Afterall, when you prepare a lesson I hope you pray and earnestly seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not your own wisdom and understanding, to prepare and deliver your lesson. The Spirit should guide you in teaching in church. Science is secondary and may be used to uphold a doctrine but it needs to be clear that this would be *your* understanding, not the Church's belief. Even then as ksfisher in #63 pointed out, that still may lead to confusion. Overall the more you stay with the doctrines the better and more appropriate your lesson will be.

As for there not being official positions on certain scientific ideas, that in and of itself is your answer for clarity. Since it is not clear what is true on there matters, than don't teach them as if they are God's truth. In fact you have no authority to do so. My view is that since God has not revealed the truth or error of science it means God really doesn't care what you believe regarding science (nor do I, btw). But these are your beliefs, not eternal truths and thus it would be prudent not to cause an effect of these ideas upon people in a church setting.

Now, go do your home teaching, sir. There's people out there to be served. (I definitely need to improve in doing my own home teaching)

Edited June 18, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

....all I'm asking for is that the church offer us a pathway forward...if that pathway IS the manuals, Ensign, Scripture...then IT is in conflict with reality...

It seems even clearer now that you uphold one prevailing idea of science as "reality" to the point that this "reality" is absolute truth. Am I correct?

[Darren10]

Why? Because Glenn Beck is part of the prevailing orthodoxy of this particular ward.

I think that would scare even Glenn beck.

[Darren10]

If, as Elder Nelson says, the Creation is a "crucial component of the plan of salvation", how could it be considered "tangential" to discuss the method of creation and such things as whether or not there was, in fact, physical death before the fall of Adam?

Because we do not know the method of creation, do we? We do know Adam and Eve were created by God and that they are our first parents but by what method were they created? We really do not know. Here, even based upon wha we do know: that Adam ws formed from the "dust of the earth" and Eve from one of Adam's ribs, it is very unclear as to the methods of creation. That's why it is quite tengential.

[Log]

Because we do not know the method of creation, do we? We do know Adam and Eve were created by God and that they are our first parents but by what method were they created? We really do not know. Here, even based upon wha we do know: that Adam ws formed from the "dust of the earth" and Eve from one of Adam's ribs, it is very unclear as to the methods of creation. That's why it is quite tengential.

But it is clear that God did the creating.

[jmason]

"I think that would scare even Glenn beck."

I guess what I meant is my ward is very conservative, and bringing up Bro. Beck in High Priests (it was HPGM, not Gospel Doctrine, as I think I said) is not going to raise any eyebrows.

[Darren10]

But it is clear that God did the creating.

Very true.

[Darren10]

"I think that would scare even Glenn beck."

I guess what I meant is my ward is very conservative, and bringing up Bro. Beck in High Priests (it was HPGM, not Gospel Doctrine, as I think I said) is not going to raise any eyebrows.

Given that it was high priest group, we'll cut you all some slack.

[jmason]

And bringing up and discussing evolution in a student ward at Harvard would not raise any eyebrows, I suspect. My brother used to live in Princeton and I attended church with him there a number of times and I can tell you that a typical adult class in that ward was very different, in terms of content, than one in my home ward--although both wards (and indeed the entire church) were using the same manual

[Craig Paxton]

So I'm guessing I should not run into any push back from this board were I to take a Hat and a Stone as object lessons in a teen Book of Mormon class to illustrate the mechanics of golden plate translation correct? Since we're all on the same page as to how that supposedly took place...

[Log]

Just make sure whatever you do, you do it in a big, egregious way. It would be super cool, for example, if you were to produce a working seerstone - otherwise, you're kinda just being a contrarian crank.

[Darren10]

So I'm guessing I should not run into any push back from this board were I to take a Hat and a Stone as object lessons in a teen Book of Mormon class to illustrate the mechanics of golden plate translation correct? Since we're all on the same page as to how that supposedly took place...

If you feel so inspired to. Though I think your posts are becoming 90% facetious and 10% sincere.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Darren10

[Craig Paxton]

If you feel so inspired to. Though I think your posts are becoming 90% facetious and 10% sincere.

more like 85%-15%...but who's counting...

but I am sincere in thinking that building a tighter conformity of beliefs would be beneficial to the body of the church...but I'm not gonna hold my breath...the days of conformity have passed...and I see the gulf of conflict only widening in the future moving forward.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Darren10]

more like 85%-15%...but who's counting...

but I am sincere in thinking that building a tighter conformity of beliefs would be beneficial to the body of the church...but I'm not gonna hold my breath...the days of conformity have passed...and I see the gulf of conflict only widening in the future moving forward.

LOL. Thanks for the statistical correction.

There is indeed advantages, perhaps that of unity in this case, in conformity of beliefs. However, since its inception, the LDS Church has never dictated what man should believe in science. I think there is much wisdom in that. Furthermore, I do not think there's any biblical or scriptural bases for advocating the dictation of scientific interpretaton except that of hygene. And hygene has a direct affect on man's well being. This brngs to ming, I belive it was Elder Nelsen who spoke about the wonders of the heart and how much work it does during its lifetime. Are funcitions ofthe heart doctrine? Not directly so as far as I'm aware but Elder Nelson qickly tied his interesting cardio remarks to that of standard LDS doctrines. So I think bringing in man's science is fine in a church setting so long as your focus is on doctrines we know are true. In fact, just last night I spent around 2 hours working on an etymological presentation ofthe word "priesthood". I personally enjoy etymology but I designed the presentation to open up discussion of what it means to be a priesthood holder and the lesson itself will be doctrinally based according to the lesson manual provided (downloaded from the Church website).

Even on doctrinal matters, let's say the scriptures, the LDS Churh leaves much leway into personal interpretation of scriptures. The LDS Church tends to gve an overall gidance of scriptures but it's up to individuals through their own diligence to interpret them according to he Spirit. This places much responsibility and thus much ofthe growth upon individuals and that I think is a great blessing for those who excercise their faith and are diligent in their religious studies and their religious living. Dictating interpretations could very well rob them of these potential blessings.

[Robert F. Smith]

more like 85%-15%...but who's counting...

but I am sincere in thinking that building a tighter conformity of beliefs would be beneficial to the body of the church...but I'm not gonna hold my breath...the days of conformity have passed...and I see the gulf of conflict only widening in the future moving forward.

Guy Fawkes also had his dreams of change . . . to fit his sense of appropriate conformity.

[selek1]

Personally, I have two specific problems with the proposed/theoretical call to police the beliefs of the members.

First and foremost, we have plenty of logistical problems pounding the things we do know into the heads of certain members.

How many times have we heard, "The Church doesn't teach X." only to show that not only does the Church "teach X", but does so in the standard manuals which are repeated on a regular cycle?

Second, one need only look at the shrieking, gnashing of teeth, wailing, crying, and wringing of hands over the alleged treatment of genuine apostates at the hands of the nefarious (insert sneaky look and mustache twirl here) Strengthening the Membership committee.

Even when their alleged "crackdowns" were completely justified, charges of McCarthyism and Star Chambers were thrown about and the Church likened to the Soviet Empire (with the SMC as the Mormon KGB).

Can you imagine the hysterical tears (and near orgasmic schadenfreude) among the critics if the Church started policing the rank-and-file instead of the glory hounds and Korihors?

[ERayR]

It really all depends on what the prevailing orthodoxy is. For example, six months ago in my ward Gospel Doctrine class the teacher referenced Glenn Beck, something he said, and an approving murmur rose up from the class signaling assent--or so it seemed to me. Nobody except me, it appeared, was bothered by the five minutes or so the teacher then spent in talking about what Glenn Beck said.

Why? Because Glenn Beck is part of the prevailing orthodoxy of this particular ward.

Was it about church doctrine or politics? If it was church doctrine I would not consider Glenn Beck an authority. However, if it was about politics He is probably an authority. Aw But politics should not have come up from a gospel doctrine teacher.

[ERayR]

So I'm guessing I should not run into any push back from this board were I to take a Hat and a Stone as object lessons in a teen Book of Mormon class to illustrate the mechanics of golden plate translation correct? Since we're all on the same page as to how that supposedly took place...

Depends on how you used them. If you only used them as object lessons with a positive reason for their use, great. If however you were to present them in the mocking, sneering tone of some of your posts it would probably not be a good idea.