Fundamental Doctrines Of Mormonism

[Sky]

As a spinoff to the "New Order Mormon" thread, my question is what doctrines are fundamental to Mormonism, and which ones are disputable or open to question? Is it possible to have doubts about certain things while at the same time being loyal to the institutional Church, and even hold a temple recommend? At what point is to okay to question, and at what point does it become problematic? I've always thought that it is okay to question; that is why we are here. None of us has a perfect knowledge, and the very reason why we have the knowledge that we have today is because Joseph went into the grove of trees to ask a question. When questioning becomes a problem is when it crosses over from honest inquiry to being openly critical of the leaders of the Church. Am I right? Thoughts?

[Vanguard]

As a spinoff to the "New Order Mormon" thread, my question is what doctrines are fundamental to Mormonism, and which ones are disputable or open to question? Is it possible to have doubts about certain things while at the same time being loyal to the institutional Church, and even hold a temple recommend? At what point is to okay to question, and at what point does it become problematic? I've always thought that it is okay to question; that is why we are here. None of us has a perfect knowledge, and the very reason why we have the knowledge that we have today is because Joseph went into the grove of trees to ask a question. When questioning becomes a problem is when it crosses over from honest inquiry to being openly critical of the leaders of the Church. Am I right? Thoughts?

I suspect there are many though I probably wouldn't entirely agree with the list. The doctrines fundamental and particular to Mormonism, as I see it, have to be (though not necessarily in any order) - 1) the authenticity of the BoM as scripture and a historical rendering of an ancient people; 2) the power of the Priesthood and its unbroken chain from Christ; 3) continuing revelation through a man and/or group of men tasked with managing the affairs of Christ's church; and 4) temple work. I've probably missed something but these are the first four that come to mind.

[Saints Alive]

I think your tag line is the best answer.

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. -Joseph Smith

[ERayR]

As a spinoff to the "New Order Mormon" thread, my question is what doctrines are fundamental to Mormonism, and which ones are disputable or open to question? Is it possible to have doubts about certain things while at the same time being loyal to the institutional Church, and even hold a temple recommend? At what point is to okay to question, and at what point does it become problematic? I've always thought that it is okay to question; that is why we are here. None of us has a perfect knowledge, and the very reason why we have the knowledge that we have today is because Joseph went into the grove of trees to ask a question. When questioning becomes a problem is when it crosses over from honest inquiry to being openly critical of the leaders of the Church. Am I right? Thoughts?

When it becomes open public opposition to the church. Beyond faith, repentance, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands it becomes individual and personal revelation. Those revelations are for you alone and are not to supplant church leadership and organization.

[pogi]

At what point is to okay to question, and at what point does it become problematic?

Questioning is never a problem. Doubting that we can receive an answer is.

[Nathair/|\]

As a basic standard, the belief questions in the temple recommend make sense.

[Robert F. Smith]

As a spinoff to the "New Order Mormon" thread, my question is what doctrines are fundamental to Mormonism, and which ones are disputable or open to question? Is it possible to have doubts about certain things while at the same time being loyal to the institutional Church, and even hold a temple recommend? At what point is to okay to question, and at what point does it become problematic? I've always thought that it is okay to question; that is why we are here. None of us has a perfect knowledge, and the very reason why we have the knowledge that we have today is because Joseph went into the grove of trees to ask a question. When questioning becomes a problem is when it crosses over from honest inquiry to being openly critical of the leaders of the Church. Am I right? Thoughts?

This is a particularly difficult question to deal with since there are a variety of very specific statements available to draw from, any one of which could contain the most basic and fundamental doctrines, ranging from the expansive Doctrine & Covenants, and Joseph Smith History to the Articles of Faith (all part of the LDS Scriptural Canon), as well as your own tag line (which reads very much like the ancient Apostles Creed).. Which ones are primary, and which are secondary? Do we tend to prize or emphasize particular doctrines and traditions over others. Brigham Young and Orson Pratt had a major dispute over doctrine, and Orson was sent on missions for several years as punishment. Yet it is the doctrinal position of Pratt which now prevails. In addition, at one time polygyny was primary, but that is no longer the case. There are many other examples. Which ones are truly important, and which mere appendiges?

Being openly critical of Church leaders is a violation of a sacred temple covenant, but what about those Mormons who have never been through the temple? Can they openly criticize Church leaders with impunity? What if the criticisms are true?

Joseph made a statement on Sunday morning, Jan 1, 1843, which has come to us in two different forms: (1): “L.D. Saints had no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist” (B. H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church, V:215), and (2), "We have no creed save it be all truth." Later that same year, Joseph said, "One of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may" (HC, V:499 [July 9, 1843]). Are these statements too amorphous to be useful in suggesting meaningful answers to your question?

Edited December 28, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

As a basic standard, the belief questions in the temple recommend make sense.

Indeed that is all there is to it. End of story.

Clearly the criterion for being an active member is having a temple recommend and using it and holding a calling.

If you live to those standards, you are a member in the best possible standing that is measurable. Sure there may be other criteria which are unmeasurable- like having your calling and election made sure, seeking the spirit, perhaps a theophany or other miraculous happenings- but we don't talk about those.

If you truly qualify for a temple recommend, that's about the "most LDS" one can be.

Edited December 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cesc101]

I feel anyone claiming to be a Mormon should basically have the following beliefs:

1) that Jesus Christ is who the bible teaches he is.

2) that this same Jesus Christ, called Joseph Smith as a prophet.

3) that as evidence of his prophetic calling, JS brought forth the BoM (then cometh then church).

[Freedom]

The articles of faith sum up the fundamental doctrines.

[CV75]

At what point is to okay to question, and at what point does it become problematic?

It is always OK to question. It becomes problematic when it negatively affects one's charity in thought, word, deed, desire, etc. even if such affectation was a pre-existing condition.

[Senator]

Clearly the criterion for being an active member is having a temple recommend and using it and holding a calling.

I know several active members that do not hold temple recommends. ??

[Storm Rider]

As I read the responses of others, I realize that I others in what I think are fundamental doctrines. To me, the fundamental doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ are:

1. The heavens are open; God answers prayers and continues to actively lead his chosen representatives on the earth.

2. We believe in Thirteen Articles of Faith

3. We believe that God is the author of all truth on the earth and regardless of where it is found or taught, we claim those truths and rejoice in them.

4. We believe that God speaks in our day and that new revelation is just as important as the recordings of God’s dealings with humanity in ancient times.

5. We are seekers of truth and our objective is to live our lives in accordance to those eternal truths

Questioning is not a problem. In fact, it is healthy and is the first step in finding truth. There is only a problem when we think that we have it all figured out, that our own minds are capable of comprehending God and his complete plan for all of his children. Truth is not relative, but finding truth is a personal journey. The objective of truth is to lead us to more holiness and a greater desire to reflect God’s light in all that we do.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Storm Rider

[Tacenda]

As I read the responses of others, I realize that I others in what I think are fundamental doctrines. To me, the fundamental doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ are:

1. The heavens are open; God answers prayers and continues to actively lead his chosen representatives on the earth.

2. We believe in Thirteen Articles of Faith

3. We believe that God is the author of all truth on the earth and regardless of where it is found or taught, we claim those truths and rejoice in them.

4. We believe that God speaks in our day and that new revelation is just as important as the recordings of God’s dealings with humanity in ancient times.

5. We are seekers of truth and our objective is to live our lives in accordance to those eternal truths

Questioning is not a problem. In fact, it is healthy and is the first step in finding truth. There is only a problem when we think that we have it all figured out, that our own minds are capable of comprehending God and his complete plan for all of his children. Truth is not relative, but finding truth is a personal journey. The objective of truth is to lead us to more holiness and a greater desire to reflect God’s light in all that we do.

Great post!!

[mfbukowski]

I know several active members that do not hold temple recommends. ??

I meant "most active" as opposed to "least active".

[DBMormon]

As a spinoff to the "New Order Mormon" thread, my question is what doctrines are fundamental to Mormonism, and which ones are disputable or open to question? Is it possible to have doubts about certain things while at the same time being loyal to the institutional Church, and even hold a temple recommend? At what point is to okay to question, and at what point does it become problematic? I've always thought that it is okay to question; that is why we are here. None of us has a perfect knowledge, and the very reason why we have the knowledge that we have today is because Joseph went into the grove of trees to ask a question. When questioning becomes a problem is when it crosses over from honest inquiry to being openly critical of the leaders of the Church. Am I right? Thoughts?

IMHO

1.) One has to either Know or hope that the "Book of Mormon" is divine

2.) One has to either Know or hope that Joseph Smith had personal interactions with the divine in a way that God willingly chose to use Joseph to accomplish his mission and declare new truth and reveal lost ones.

3.) One has to either Know or hope that the LDS Church headquartered in Salt Lake City is an institution that God willingly approves and works within to bring about his purposes.

4.)One has to either Know or hope that if the Lord chose to speak to the whole earth through a human that he would do so through the current Prophet of the church.

5.) One must hold that God sees value in the ordinances of the church in their effect in sanctifying us.

The above is my litmus test to be LDS with a caveat

When Someone loses faith in these things as long as they are holding out hope to regain them and are not destroying the faith of others intentionally (they have to be allowed to talk to someone even at the risk of opening a can of worms for this other person.) Then they should be comfortable in the tent of mormonism.

There are too many possible factors for removing them from membership so I simply wanted to deal with what I see as their being able to be comfortable within Mormonism and Others being comfortable with them.

Edited December 28, 2012 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Question = Are the thirteen articles of faith Doctrine. I realize parts of it are but is the document listing all thriteen doctrine or is a a list Joseph put on paper to share with nonmembers having not claimed the list as revelation?

Edited December 28, 2012 by DBMormon

[mfbukowski]

I guess my point just is that we can each of us list what we think are the fundamental doctrines and what is doctrine or whether or not something is doctrine but the fact remains, that if you can pass a temple recommend interview truthfully, that is about as "high" as your membership can be "classified" according to the church.

After that. it's all just talk.

[rockpond]

As a spinoff to the "New Order Mormon" thread, my question is what doctrines are fundamental to Mormonism, and which ones are disputable or open to question?

This is a fascinating question because the inquiry itself is fraught with nebulous terms. To adequately determine a singular answer one would have to have clear, agreed-upon definitions of "doctrine", "fundamental", and "Mormonism". I think we could spend entire threads debating the meaning of each other those words.

For me, I have always appreciated the quote that Saints Alive used: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." -Joseph Smith

But I have also reached a place where I can welcome someone into what we lovingly call Mormonism if they simply desire to be united in the community of Latter-day Saints. All creeds become secondary if an individual wants to be a friend and joint seeker of Zion.

[Freedom]

The Church Education System has identified the following list as 'Basic Doctrines'

1. Godhead

2. Plan of Salvation

3. Creation and Fall

4. Atonement of Jesus Christ

5. Dispensation, Apostasy, and Restoration

6. Prophets

7. Priesthood

8. First Principles and Ordinances

9. Ordinances and Covenants

10. Commandments

11. Marriage and Family

http://seminary.lds.org/mastery/basic-doctrines?lang=eng

[SamIam]

As a spinoff to the "New Order Mormon" thread, my question is what doctrines are fundamental to Mormonism, and which ones are disputable or open to question? Is it possible to have doubts about certain things while at the same time being loyal to the institutional Church, and even hold a temple recommend? At what point is to okay to question, and at what point does it become problematic? I've always thought that it is okay to question; that is why we are here. None of us has a perfect knowledge, and the very reason why we have the knowledge that we have today is because Joseph went into the grove of trees to ask a question. When questioning becomes a problem is when it crosses over from honest inquiry to being openly critical of the leaders of the Church. Am I right? Thoughts?

Usually I would develop a subject like this with quotes and scripture references but then they get long and lost. But if anything that I state seems incongruous I am happy to illustrate the source material.

I think there are a couple of paradigms to consider in the answer of this question. First and most important is to identify knowledge of what? Is all knowledge equal in value and requirement? Absolutely not.

Elder Mcconkie and others mention that in the early moments of the millennial reign of Christ there will be both members and non-members present who will have escaped the destruction of the second coming. Using the non-members as our lowest common denominator, what knowledge do some of them possess that warrants their preservation when the prophets also warn us that 5 of the 10 virgins will be lost in the Second coming - the ten virgins representing members of the church. The nonmembers have not been to the temple, they have not been baptized by authority, they have no gift of the Holy Ghost and yet some will pass protected through the conflagration. What did they need to know. To keep this brief just searching the Book of Mormon for the word knowledge finds that the vast majority are very specific as to what knowledge is to be coveted.

Mosiah 27:36

- knowledge of the truth, yea, to the knowledge of their Redeemer

Helaman 15:13

- they shall again be

brought to the true knowledge, which is the knowledge of their Redeemer

,

2 Nephi 30:5

- wherefore,

they shall be restored unto the knowledge of their fathers, and also to the

knowledge of Jesus Christ

,

1 Nephi 15:14

- and then shall they know and come to the knowledge of their forefathers, and also

to the knowledge of the gospel of their Redeemer,

which was ministered unto their fathers by him; wherefore, they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer

and the very points of his doctrine, that they may know how to come unto him and be saved.

Jacob 4:12

- for

why not speak of the atonement of Christ, and attain to a perfect knowledge of him

, as to attain to the knowledge of a resurrection and the world to come?

This is just a small sample of many many more verses that define the knowledge of importance as the knowledge of Jesus Christ. Finding such clear direction predominate in scripture causes me to recognize that far too many put the cart before the horse and lack a solid foundation of this particular point of knowledge. That Jesus is the Christ. This is not describing the kind of knowledge that means they know his name and that he may have been an actual person but it is the kind of conversion experience that causes one to believe and live according to the knowledge they receive to the very best of their ability. Those who are non-members will be saved, thought they lack key other knowledge because they have firmly entered into the path that illustrates they love the Lord and will serve him with all of their heart might mind and strength. This validates their potential to be his sheep and hear his voice.

For those 5 virgins who do not make it, though they have baptism and may have their temple ordinances in place, we can see that it is more than what they “know” in terms of tangential to Christ knowledge and more of what they know and are as being that embrace becoming as their Lord and Savior.

Once this foundation is in place and one proceeds along the path to membership in the LDS Church various others bits of knowledge will be added but the core that gives every other principle of knowledge any efficacy and value at all is the solid belief that Jesus is the Christ. Then one should have that expanded to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints is his Church and Joseph Smith was the first prophet of this dispensation and that each prophet thereafter is God’s choice to guide his people.

Now you mention doubts and imperfect knowledge and such. Here we may get into semantics and word meaning issues but IF the foundation is solid and Jesus is genuinely the Christ and one has conformed to completely desiring to live according to his commandments, not that we do all at once because it is a process, but that we really do desire to do so and are progressing in the process then doubts tend to be something different than actual doubt. Just the same as “knowledge” is concerning the foundational aspect of Jesus is the Christ and this is his church and he has called the prophets to serve in their capacities, sometimes doubt is concerning the same issues. In other words, if we doubt the foundational issues then we are looking beyond the mark of our testimony base and we must strengthen those things so that they are never in doubt BEFORE we advance in our investigative efforts.

If these foundational principles are not at risk, then when I encounter things that create tension in my knowledge base, it is not that I doubt Jesus Christ, the church or his prophets, but that I experience the natural sense of “not knowing” and all of its attendant instability. I sense this is different than doubt. I don’t have the knowledge and so I feel that sense of uneasiness that pushes me forward until I do understand what I seek to know. This can take months days or years and maybe never but again this state of unknowing should not cast doubt on the foundational principles that must be in place.

Finally, once the foundational principles are in place it is no longer a function of questioning the prophets. It is a process of trying to understand their intended meaning and how it embraces Jesus Christ. You don’t question them because you have built on the firm foundation of proper testimony. In other words, if you found yourself doubting a prophet, you still have yet to truly have the testimony that this is Christ’s church and he has chosen his mouth pieces carefully. Even though in your search you may find you are not always in agreement with a particular quote or condition, it should not be that you enter a state of doubt about the knowledge with which you have built your foundation. You simply are not in agreement and accepting that Prophets are men like you and I, will simply put those disagreements in their proper place of perfectly acceptable until we come to greater understanding of one another.

All too often in the church people gain partial testimonies that they do not receive adequate conviction of and they start running faster than they are able in their quest to search out more and more knowledge. However, if I use polygamy as an example of any number of concepts in the church that one might encounter, if one is not wise enough to build their understanding of polygamy around their testimony of Jesus Christ and what it means to Him and His Father, they will never understand polygamy properly and can thus find themselves at odds with portions of their foundations which are inadequately developed. In other words any knowledge you seek that is not developed around what the scriptures dictate is the primary knowledge of significance, that of Jesus Christ, will be potentially misunderstood. Building it around Christ lets you search as far and wide as you can wish. Failing to do so is a state of trouble that for some overwhelms.

Thus by wrapping all of our efforts around application to Christ and his Kingdom we are also magnifying the foundational knowledge of Jesus Christ and expanding on that knowledge by associating all tangents of peripheral knowledge on that fundamental point. Thus in truth we never move beyond the point of perfecting our knowledge of Jesus Christ though over time we may and should expand our grasp of all gospel principles.

Edited December 29, 2012 by SamIam

[onefour1]

I have met other LDS posters on other message boards who do not necessarily believe what was taught by Joseph Smith in the History of the Church vol. 6 page 305 under the sub-heading, "God An Exalted Man" and the saying coined by Lorenzo Snow, "As man is, God once was. And as God is, man may become." In other words, I have met other LDS who do not necessarily believe that God was once as man like we are now and that he was not always a God. That God was not God from eternity but became a God at some point. That man also can become like God the Father. I remember when President Hinckley was asked about this teaching in the church by Mike Wallace of '60 Minutes' and he didn't give a straight forward answer. I fully embrace this as a doctrine but ask for your input on this subject to see where others stand.