Responding To Wayfarer On My Blog

[go_utes01]

Elder Oaks taught this about teaching: Teachers who are commanded to teach “the principles of [the] gospel” and “the doctrine of the kingdom” (D&C 88:77) should generally forgo teaching specific rules or applications. For example, they would not teach any rules for determining what is a full tithing, and they would not provide a list of dos and don’ts for keeping the Sabbath day holy. Once a teacher has taught the doctrine and the associated principles from the scriptures and the living prophets, such specific applications or rules are generally the responsibility of individuals and families...gospel teachers should also be scrupulous to avoid hobby topics, personal speculations, and controversial subjects. The Lord’s revelations and the directions of His servants are clear on this point.

Also, check out this 2007 document entitled "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" from the newsroom:http://www.mormonnew...mormon-doctrine

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (theHoly Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
  
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.
  

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “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.”

• 
  
  • Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receiverevelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern(Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
    
  • Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwidehumanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
    
  • Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.
    

Edited January 11, 2013 by go_utes01

[CV75]

I agree the Leadership has distanced itself from the nonsense, but it has done so trying not to outwardly denounce past statements by leaders. Even the example Elder Chriostofferson used about BY was unspecified.

Until someone says A, B, & C are wrong and always were, it will continue to be an issue for many and as Elder Jensen stated they are leaving the church in amounts not seen since Kirtland

Leadership is engaged in saying what is right rather than pointing out what is wrong. The Lord's anointed are a witness for something, not against something. On this point, they are engaged in using the keys of the kingdom to give people the Gift of the Holy Ghost (and to show them how to use it), or in other words, in guiding them in how to think and believe, not telling them what not to think or believe.

The issue for many that leave is that they do not use the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and ignore sound guidance in how to use it in relation to their natural intellect, emotions, and attitude. The solution is to sustain our leaders’ efforts to strengthen people from within themselves, where God wants to meet with them.

[teddyaware]

Leadership is engaged in saying what is right rather than pointing out what is wrong. The Lord's anointed are a witness for something, not against something. On this point, they are engaged in using the keys of the kingdom to give people the Gift of the Holy Ghost (and to show them how to use it), or in other words, in guiding them in how to think and believe, not telling them what not to think or believe.

The issue for many that leave is that they do not use the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and ignore sound guidance in how to use it in relation to their natural intellect, emotions, and attitude. The solution is to sustain our leaders’ efforts to strengthen people from within themselves, where God wants to meet with them.

Here, here!

[DBMormon]

Leadership is engaged in saying what is right rather than pointing out what is wrong. The Lord's anointed are a witness for something, not against something. On this point, they are engaged in using the keys of the kingdom to give people the Gift of the Holy Ghost (and to show them how to use it), or in other words, in guiding them in how to think and believe, not telling them what not to think or believe.

The issue for many that leave is that they do not use the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and ignore sound guidance in how to use it in relation to their natural intellect, emotions, and attitude. The solution is to sustain our leaders’ efforts to strengthen people from within themselves, where God wants to meet with them.

I also agree with this, but we must also realize if we never address these issues pointing out incorrect things, many will continue to lose faith and leave, and I am not ok with that but I also respect the why behind why they don't address those things.

[go_utes01]

These issues are addressed, just not specifically over the pulpit at general conference. There are better venues and avenues to discuss these things. I find it much more helpful to personally discuss these issues with people who are struggling or have questions.

[teddyaware]

I also agree with this, but we must also realize if we never address these issues pointing out incorrect things, many will continue to lose faith and leave, and I am not ok with that but I also respect the why behind why they don't address those things.

I

As one of those "lifetime smart members" of which you speak, I would like to address, one at a time, each of one those items on your list of 15 of "false doctines." I won't move on to comment on the next item on your list until you've had ample chance to respond to my remarks on each individual point of controversy.

1 Dinosaurs came from other worlds.

I've never heard of this one before, unless you're referring to Hugh Nibley's speculation (perhaps others speculated similarly) that the dinosaurs may have been creatures that came forth during an earlier creative phase that took place on this planet we call earth, As I recall, according to Nibley's theory, the aforementioned creative period was said to have passed away prior to the commensement of the supposed "new" creative phase that's recorded in Genesis 1.

As far as I know (please do correct me if I'm in error), this theory was never at all considered to be some sort of "doctrine." It was speculation, I believe, pure and simple and that's all. In fact, this theory stands in direct contradiction to the "no pre-Adamites" position strongly held by Joseph Fielding Smith, McConkie and others. So if there's anybody who has lost or is losing their faith and testimony over this purely speculative theory, that's inexplicable to me. But who knows, in this world almost anything can happen at least once.

In fairness to you, though, there are quite a few "lifetime smart members" I know (myself included) who are keeping an open mind when it comes to the dogmatic theories of evolutionary Darwinism, as held by so many scientists (many of whom, I hasten to add, are hard-core materialists and athiests). And since Marx, Hitler, Stalin and Mao (the last three being the worst mass muders of world history) used Darwin's theories to propogate brutally enforced athiesm and to provide justification for their sycopathic genocidal onslaughts (by their fruits ye shall know them), many of we "lifetime smart members" can't help but be left with a bad taste in our collective mouths when we consider Darwin's theory and how it has been, and is being, applied.

So please excuse us if we "Lifetime smart(s)" keep an open mind on the subject of just exactly how God created the world. Before making up our minds on the subject, we'd rather remain open to a myriad of possibie explainations until the blessed day finally arrives when Lord discloses all his mysteries to the worthy. Anyway, scientists are always having to revise their strongly held theories -- so as for yours truly, he'll be content to just patiently wait until all the facts are in.

Edited January 11, 2013 by teddyaware

[CV75]

I also agree with this, but we must also realize if we never address these issues pointing out incorrect things, many will continue to lose faith and leave, and I am not ok with that but I also respect the why behind why they don't address those things.

In pointing out incorrect things, it is essential to replace it with the opposing knowledge revealed from God through the keys they possess for the purpose of saving His children.

- Dinosaurs came from other worlds—where did they come from? This has not been revealed from God through the keys they possess for the purpose of saving His children.

- Adam had technology like TV's—what did he have? This has not been revealed from God through the keys they possess for the purpose of saving His children.

- Earth is only 6000 years old—how old is it? This has not been revealed from God through the keys they possess for the purpose of saving His children.

- Bigfoot is cain—who is he? This has not been revealed from God through the keys they possess for the purpose of saving His children.

- Masonry is evil—how is it not evil? This has not been revealed from God through the keys they possess for the purpose of saving His children.

- Jesus born on April 6^th—when was he born? This has not been revealed from God through the keys they possess for the purpose of saving His children.

- God is polygamous—how is He not? This has not been revealed from God through the keys they possess for the purpose of saving His children.

- Jesus had multiple wives—how did He not? This has not been revealed from God through the keys they possess for the purpose of saving His children.

- Many will become perfect in this life—how many will not? This has not been revealed from God through the keys they possess for the purpose of saving His children.

- Follow the prophet at all costs, even if it goes against your conscience. Actually, I’ve heard this issue addressed in spades.

- certain specific forms of intimacy between a husband and wife is sin while others leaders said it was off limits to specific. UNITELLIGIBLE

- Coffee is excluded because of tanic acid.—this has in fact been addressed.

- Jesus didn't really drink real wine it was grapejuice only—what was it? This has not been revealed from God through the keys they possess for the purpose of saving His children.

- God doesn't want us to have facial hair in our current times—does He want us to grow it? This has not been revealed from God through the keys they possess for the purpose of saving His children.

- Thomash Marsh left the church of cream and strippings (primary reason)-what were all the reasons? This has not been revealed from God through the keys they possess for the purpose of saving His children.

Beliefs are funny things.

That is why the leadership only points out incorrect things (like sin) when they have the correct thing to replace it with.

[Calm]

It's the Utah Disease. Inbreeding and all that doncha know?

There are two I never heard of..Adam having technology, the visual images we are taught with certainly don't convey that impression, also that people can become perfect in this lifetime...I am guessing that is a spinoff from being translated perhaps though the scriptures certainly don't indicate perfection as equal.

[Calm]

Why all the disparaging of so-called "Utah mormons"? I grew up in Utah, in a non-LDS family (and was actually quite anti), was baptized and active in Utah prior to my mission, served in a foreign country, and have lived in several places outside of Utah. From my experience, some of the brightest, kindest, soundest in doctrine, most charitable members I have met are in Utah. Of course not every member anywhere is perfect (or even close). I just think with a large population of members, it seems obvious that you will likely find some of the best and probably some of the not-so best.

There has been some trashing by some visitors and a few board members of the Utah mentality....in response other posters make snide comments parodying the criticisms. If you don't know the history you may believe the parody is the insult when it is not. There is also a generally friendly rivalry between the universities' sports teams, I can think of only one rare poster who takes it way too seriously in my view. Edited January 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

1 Dinosaurs came from other worlds.

I believe what he is referring to is the idea that the earth is made up of older planets that have come apart and the dinosaur bones are remnants from such a world or another possibility is God took bones from another world and placed them here to try men's faith in the scriptures. In 50 plus years I have never heard this taught by a leader, have heard it taught outside the faith and have heard it taught against maybe in Institute, definitely in discussions with a home teacher who was a geologist with whom we laughed about various archaic notions in the world of science. Edited January 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Unfotunately it is the gospel hobbies of Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R McConkie that perpetuated this notion of it being ok to place emphasis on topics outside the Doctrine of Christ. Mormon Doctrine is on every shelf... what's that?... duh it's Mormon DOCTRINE. Easy to see why those who don't investigate these issues online run into trouble.... it's too easy

Mormon Doctrine is no longer being published last I heard. We have manuals about the teachings of the prophets that the Church sees value in each member learning. The lack of their presence says a great deal about the regard the Church holds for them. Edited January 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Mormon Doctrine is no longer being published last I heard. We have manuals about the teachings of the prophets that the Church sees value in each member learning. The lack of their presence says a great deal about the regard the Church holds for them.

Somehow my son has one from his mission about 2 yrs. ago. I wonder if they have them in the mission homes in boxes to hand out since they're no longer sold at the Deseret Bookstore. I'll have to ask.

[Calm]

Your son could have picked it up used from a used bookstore or member. Mormon Doctrine was never on the list of approved books as long as I can remember. I don't know of a member under the age of 60 that hasn't expressed reservations about certain aspects of the book even if they admire it generally. It is on my bookshelf because of its historical significance, I got it from a nonmember friend who was disgusted by it, luckily she was aware of its history as well as having extensive contact with LDS so any problems she had with it she connected to the author, not the faith.

Since it is out of print completely, I doubt the MP has a stash or if he could afford it personally. The book was never used as a manual or official reference book by the Church even though there were many citations in manuals from it...but no more in the more recent ones, I believe curriculum writers have been told not to reference the book but can't remember the source, only that it was someone who had been involved in writing newer manuals.

On Amazon, someone is attempting to sell the edition I have for $250, yeah, right...I'll have to hold on to mine to fund my grand kids' college.

Edited January 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[go_utes01]

There has been some trashing by some visitors and a few board members of the Utah mentality....in response other posters make snide comments parodying the criticisms. If you don't know the history you may believe the parody is the insult when it is not. There is also a generally friendly rivalry between the universities' sports teams, I can think of only one rare poster who takes it way too seriously in my view.

I guess sarcasm/parody is not so apparent in online communication. I apologize if I assumed offense, when none was meant. As for the rivalry between universities, I think my name shows that I am well aware of that. The fact that there are so many Mormons that are BYU fans just underscores that all is not well in Zion and the need for repentance (see, some might not understand that this was TIC).

Edited January 11, 2013 by go_utes01

[DBMormon]

You indicate I offended All Smart Lifetime members when I was only speaking about those incorrect false doctrines that are taught by wise, well read, lifetime members that younger members trust and get thair faith framework set up incorrectly by that trust.

I could easily replace that thought with

You indicate I offended “Middle Way Mormons” members when I was only speaking about the “teaching of denying the atonement” that are taught by some “Middle Way Mormons” that some members listen to and get their faith framework set up incorrectly by that view.

So for any who feel I was speaking at all intelligent lifetime members, I wasn’t. It wasn’t even a dig at those who teach false doctrines, rather it was about how we as a church move beyond it (or at least get better) since younger mebers are at risk when it happens.

#2 I never claimed General Authorities taught the whole list, only 9 of them. And it is not about whether things on that list are plausible, it is whether they are Doctrine or not, and if not it is dealing with instances where Leaders taught it as if it was doctrine.

So I am unsure of what I am responding to that goes against what I have stated?

[teddyaware]

Mormon Doctrine is no longer being published last I heard. We have manuals about the teachings of the prophets that the Church sees value in each member learning. The lack of their presence says a great deal about the regard the Church holds for them.

I ask the following question in a spirit of honest inquiry only. Where exactly (aside from his comments on the Catholic Church found only in the first edition) was Elder McConkie in error in his Mormon Doctrine. I'm wanting to do a little research on his alleged doctrinal errors.

[go_utes01]

I believe what he is referring to is the idea that the earth is made up of older planets that have come apart and the dinosaur bones are remnants from such a world or another possibility is God took bones from another world and placed them here to try men's faith in the scriptures. In 50 plus years I have never heard this taught by a leader, have heard it taught outside the faith and have heard it taught against maybe in Institute, definitely in discussions with a home teacher who was a geologist with whom we laughed about various archaic notions in the world of science.

I heard it taught on NBC's Friends when Phoebe was mocking Ross (a paleontologist for those non-connoisseurs).

Edited January 11, 2013 by go_utes01

[DBMormon]

Mormon Doctrine is no longer being published last I heard. We have manuals about the teachings of the prophets that the Church sees value in each member learning. The lack of their presence says a great deal about the regard the Church holds for them.

Though Leaders still quote the book in conference talks and in other places and way too many members have it on their shelf and consider it doctrine. I have no problem with the facts, it is the permitting a incorrect image of doctrine to persist or at best die out slowly with no one noticing. Again I also understand the why, just worried many more will leave before it is near completely righted

Edited January 11, 2013 by DBMormon

[go_utes01]

Though Leaders still quote the book in conference talks and in other places and most members have it on their shelf and consider it doctrine. I have no problem with the facts, it is the permitting a incorrect image of doctrine to persist or at best die out slowly with no one noticing. Again I also understand the why, just worried many more will leave before it is near completely righted

CFR - that "most members consider it doctrine." I know of exactly nobody that believes that Mormon Doctrine is, in fact, doctrine.

Edited January 11, 2013 by go_utes01

[Calm]

I ask the following question in a spirit of honest inquiry only. Where exactly (aside from his comments on the Catholic Church found only in the first edition) was Elder McConkie in error in his Mormon Doctrine. I'm wanting to do a little research on his alleged doctrinal errors.

I would say his primary error was in stating as fact things that were his personal opinion. Some of his scholarship is outdated. There is much, much that is good in the book but his tone tends to colour even the good stuff. You probably could use 90 to 95% with confidence and most of the rest with some caution. He was a good man who was wise about many things and who I heard in more private settings where offence would not be drawn by his acting like a normal guy, his kindness and humour really came out. It is sad that caution has to be suggested because of the few (percentage wise) errors in his book. If you want specific details beyond that, I would suggest starting a new thread so people could grab their copy and point out the things they like and dislike about the book.

[Calm]

CFR - that "most members consider it doctrine." I know of exactly nobody that believes that Mormon Doctrine is, in fact, doctrine.

CFR as well...nonmembers may assume it and converts not familiar with the book may have that impression, but I've never heard one who actually used it consider it official doctrine.

[DBMormon]

CFR - that "most members consider it doctrine." I know of exactly nobody that believes that Mormon Doctrine is, in fact, doctrine.

Sorry

Change to "Way too many".... I think most aware of the book do consider it doctrine but no, I have no way to prove that.

[go_utes01]

Sorry

Change to "Way too many".... I think most aware of the book do consider it doctrine but no, I have no way to prove that.

What leads you to believe that? We have several members here, and it doesn't appear that a single person believes it to be official doctrine.

[teddyaware]

I would say his primary error was in stating as fact things that were his personal opinion. Some of his scholarship is outdated. There is much, much that is good in the book but his tone tends to colour even the good stuff. You probably could use 90 to 95% with confidence and most of the rest with some caution. He was a good man who was wise about many things and who I heard in more private settings where offence would not be drawn by his acting like a normal guy, his kindness and humour really came out. It is sad that caution has to be suggested because of the few (percentage wise) errors in his book. If you want specific details beyond that, I would suggest starting a new thread so people could grab their copy and point out the things they like and dislike about the book.

Thanks for the fair and balanced input. Since I posted to you, I've done some research on this board and have found threads that have enabled me to answer my own questions about Mormon Doctrine.

Just one comment. I see there is a tremendous amount of disrespect aimed at Elder McConkie and his writtings. The abundant vitriol, sarcasm and the manifest lack of deference shown to an Apostle of the Lord, displayed by many on this board, seems like a bunch of very black pots calling a nearly clean kettle black. It's a shame, really. Such lack of respect and such self righteous judgmentalism, aimed at one of the Lord's anointed Apostles, can only lead to spiritual disquietude and unhappiness. It would be wise for these harsh critics of Elder McConkie to remember the golden rule -- do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.

Enemies of the the restored Church who lurk here on this board must rejoice in their hearts each time they see the Lord's people mock and deride one of their very faithful and diligent duly ordained leaders. It's time to grow up...

Edited January 11, 2013 by teddyaware

[CV75]

Unfotunately it is the gospel hobbies of Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R McConkie that perpetuated this notion of it being ok to place emphasis on topics outside the Doctrine of Christ. Mormon Doctrine is on every shelf... what's that?... duh it's Mormon DOCTRINE. Easy to see why those who don't investigate these issues online run into trouble.... it's too easy

I was a member of the Church about 15 months when I was ordained an elder. I felt it was my duty to learn much more than i had, so a purchased Mormon Doctrine at a book sale at the stake center the Saturday night of stake conference. Over the next 3 months or so I read it cover-to-cover; more in fact because I read the cross-references for each article as well, covering each topic more than once. Even as a relatively naive new member, I saw it as a book about Mormon Doctrine, and about this man's thoughts on the various subjects. There were a few points I did not like and did not buy into (I can't remember exactly what they were; some of it was tone, but the experience was far more positive than negative). This study exercise taught me to rely on the Spirit and the scriptures to a much greater degree than I had before. Mormon Doctrine is a fine reference book, but should not be the only reference book.

Anyway, personal relationships with people who have the Spirit with them is the best way to help people in any situation affecting their spiritual health. The Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost strive with the vast majority of people, member and non-member alike, if only they are willing to heed them. Fretting about what the Church and leaders aren't doing enough of detracts from anyone's spirituality, especially those who want to help those affected by a lack of proper investigation. As I mentioned in an earlier post that was probably too long to bother reading, the key is to show people by precept and by example how to live by the Gift of the Holy Ghost and to use it in drawing conclusions or otherwise acting on information the come across.