Survey To Evaluate False Doctrine Among Membership

[omni]

Everyone including many leaders is/are entitled to their own opinion on any subject they want. The Church has refused to make doctrine on the subject of the Flood, or on Evolution. Doctrine is established by unanimous agreement between the First Presidency AND the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles AND the First Quorum of the Seventy AND by  Common Consent. No unanimous agreement no doctrine. We all agree that Noah was a Prophet of God. That Noah built a boat, and tried to save as much as he could. The depth and extent of the waters is not agreed upon.

 

I don't see your definition anywhere in the church's current explanation of doctrine seen here

However, this statement from the link certainly seems to point towards it being 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 (the Holy 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

 

 

Once again, we have many statements by church presidents, councelors, and apostles along with wrtings in official church publications (Ensign) and scripture all in favor of a global flood.

[thesometimesaint]

See Common Consent

 

D&C 26:2. The Law of Common Consent

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35; 41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.)

Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2).

[omni]

 

See Common Consent

 

D&C 26:2. The Law of Common Consent

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35; 41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.)

Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2).

 

 

Can we safely assume the story of Lehi and his family coming to America is not considered doctrine since there has been no common consent vote among the membership?  Was there common consent among the the general membership for acceptance of coffee and tea being included in the WoW, or for the church's stance against gay marriage?  What about viewing pornography, getting tattoos, multiple piercings, and sleeveless shirts?  You're getting into a very gray area here...

[JDave]

Can we safely assume the story of Lehi and his family coming to America is not considered doctrine since there has been no common consent vote among the membership?  Was there common consent among the the general membership for acceptance of coffee and tea being included in the WoW, or for the church's stance against gay marriage?  What about viewing pornography, getting tattoos, multiple piercings, and sleeveless shirts?  You're getting into a very gray area here...

I agree that it's getting pretty gray.

 

It's pretty safe to say the Global Flood is the official doctrine of the church, due to the way it is taught and the repeated statements on the matter.  Very few General Authority statements to the contrary.

 

On the other hand, if you asked the church for their official stance on the subject they might respond with a "No Official Position".  If the church truly has no position, that is not clear in how it is taught nor in some recent statements on the matter.

[Tiki]

Wow. The 14 Articles of Faith of FairLds, FairMormon or whatever it's currently being called.

15: What is official Church Doctrine?

a. Visit FairLds because church leaders are fallible

b. Visit FairLds because Joseph Smith contradicts Dr. Sorenson

c. Visit FairLds because my college professor gave me an "A" on my paper about Darwinism

d. Visit FairLds because it's scientifically impossible to flood the entire earth with water

e. Visit FairLds because carbon dating proves that T-Rex and the Flintstones existed before Adam

f. All the above

g. Ask Asherah

[Stargazer]

This is a survey I created on my lunch break that while it would likely never be used could be to evaluate how aware members are of actual Doctrine and Church policy and History.  I would love input as to other questions that could be asked.  The questions are intended not to be critical and to be respectful of faith while evaluating awareness of truth among general membership.

 

1.) Joseph Smith likely translated the Book of Mormon from the metal plates

a - with the Nephite Interpreters or spectacles found with the plates

b - with a Seer Stone found before receiving the plates

c - likely a combination of these 2 methods

2.) What is LDS Doctrine on Evolution?

a - Evolution is false and it is not allowed to be taught at BYU

b - Evolution is true and is stated so as Doctrine and is taught as truth at BYU

c - The church has no official stance on Evolution and teaches the theory at BYU

3.) What is LDS Doctrine on the flood

a - It was a global flood that covered the whole earth

b - It was a local flood that only affected a local area where Noah lived

c - While taught as it is written, the Church has no official stance on how widespread was the flood

4.) What is the offiicial stance on How was Eve created?

a - Eve was made from one of Adam's Ribs

b - Eve was teleported to Earth from another planet's population

c - While we speak of her being made from a rib we acknowledge that this was symbolic  and figurative

5.) Why were Blacks not permitted the Priesthood prior to 1978

a - They had the Mark of Cain

b - There is no known Doctrine and any explanantion for why is opinion and not official or binding.

c - Brigham Young implemented the policy due to personally held Racist views.

6.) How old is the Earth in LDS Doctrine

a - Each dispensation represents 1,000 years so the Earth is between 6,000 and 7,000

b - The Earth is Millions and perhaps Billions of years old

c - While no official policy or Doctrine most leaders acknowledge in their personal views the Earth is in the millions or billions of years in age

7.) In LDS Doctrine where did the Book of Mormon take place

a - The Church takes no position on where Book of Mormon events took place

b - over all of the North and South America with Central America as the Narrow Neck of land

c - In the Great Lakes region

d - In Mesoamerica around Gutamala

8.) Tithing is defined in the Church as 10% of your income paid annually - the Church defines this as

a - 10% of your gross income

b - 10% of your net income

c - 10% of your surplus income

d - They restate the essence of 10% of income paid annually and add "No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly." hence leaving the decision between the member and the Lord.

9.) Word of Wisdom prohibits Tea, Coffee, and Alcohol being consumed along with Tobacco being used (smoked, dip, eaten all banned).  Which of these things are also prohibited

a - Rum cake made with real Rum

b - Beer battered onion rings

c - Soda Pop

d - None of the above are officially banned and each member should prayerfully consider if these and any others substance they take  violates the spirit of the law.  But in the end it is between the individual and the Lord

10.) In the Church we teach that we have a unpaid lay clergy.  What does this mean?

a - no one in the Church is paid as an employee

b - no ecclesasical leaders are paid but other Church employees such as office, maintence, IT, and janitorial people  are

c - While local leaders are unpaid, general leaders like Prophet, Apostle, Seventy are paid an modest income and other leaders such as Mission presidents get re-imbursements for come of their living expenses.

11 - Book of Abraham was translated with the involvement of some Egyptian papyri.  This papyri is  ________?

a -  Not the Book of Abraham at all and is instead a Standard Egyptian funeral document unconnected to Joseph's translation to the Book of Abraham

b - Is the original writings of Abraham by his own hand

c - makes up a very complex issue where we know it is in some way connected to the Book of Abraham, but at least parts of it are standard Egyptian funeral texts that seem unrelated.  We also don't have all the original papyri as some of it burned up in the Chicago Fire.  So While critics claim this translation doesn't fit and is a hoax, we claim all the facts are not present and may never be so we act in faith.

d - is a document that both Mormon and Egyptian non-mormon scholars alike agree is the writings of Abraham

12.) Polygamy was __________?

a - started by Joseph Smith as he married 2-3 women besides Emma

b - started by Brigham Young after Joseph's death wherein he married over 30 women

c - started by Joseph Smith wherein he married or was sealed to approximately 33 women while all parties were alive and included some of these women already being married at the time to other men.

13.)  Which statement most closely defines LDS Doctrine concerning obedience to Church leaders ?

a - We should follow the prophet and the other General Authorities in all that they ask us to do.  They speak the Mind and will of the Lord and when they speak the thinking has been done.  When speaking to the Church they do not error.

b - Same as (A) except we acknowledge they error at times but add Even if they are wrong we shall be blessed for following them and should do so anyways.

c - We understand that Leaders while called are not infallible and we should be in tune with the Holy Ghost to know when they are acting as prophet and when they are simply sharing opinion.  When we feel a contradiction between what they say and what we think and our belief does not violate Doctrine, we are to see an answer from the Lord on if the teaching is something we should follow.

14 .) Books written by General Authorities that are outside the LDS Canon (ex: Bruce R MCConkie's "Mormon Doctrine") are considered

a - Church puts it's official stamp of approval on them as Doctrinally sound and seen as inspired and trustworthy

b - Are not approved as Doctrinally correct and only represent the individual who wrote it and it's contents are that writer's sole responsibility.

As to #14, there may be a couple of books written by GA's which are approved of by the Church. The only one I am fairly sure of is: Jesus the Christ by Elder James E. Talmage

[thesometimesaint]

Can we safely assume the story of Lehi and his family coming to America is not considered doctrine since there has been no common consent vote among the membership?  Was there common consent among the the general membership for acceptance of coffee and tea being included in the WoW, or for the church's stance against gay marriage?  What about viewing pornography, getting tattoos, multiple piercings, and sleeveless shirts?  You're getting into a very gray area here...

 

Actually the Book of Mormon is established doctrine, SEE Articles of Faith.

 

Yes there was a common consent for the WoW.

 

Yes there was common consent against gay marriage.

 

Same with viewing pornography.

 

We have no doctrine concerning tattoo's, piercings, or sleeveless shirts. We do have doctrine concerning modesty of dress, and our dress must not overtly emphasize the Garments of the Holy Priesthood.

[canard78]

Actually the Book of Mormon is established doctrine, SEE Articles of Faith.

Yes there was a common consent for the WoW.

Yes there was common consent against gay marriage.

Same with viewing pornography.

We have no doctrine concerning tattoo's, piercings, or sleeveless shirts. We do have doctrine concerning modesty of dress, and our dress must not overtly emphasize the Garments of the Holy Priesthood.

CFR that coffee/tea as WoW was sustained by common constent.

CFR that gay marriage was also sustained against by common consent.

[thesometimesaint]

From Wiki: Originally, abiding by the recommendations and prohibitions of the Word of Wisdom was not considered mandatory: it explicitly declares itself to be "not by commandment or constraint".^[21] In February 1834, however, Joseph Smith, Jr. proposed a resolution before the high council of the church that stated, "No official member in this Church is worthy to hold an office after having the word of wisdom properly taught him; and he, the official member, neglecting to comply with and obey it."^[22] This resolution was accepted unanimously by the council.^[23]

 

Thou shalt not  steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.

D&C 59:6

Edited November 19, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Anne E. Prufe]

 

See Common Consent

 

D&C 26:2. The Law of Common Consent

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35; 41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.)

Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2).

 

 

I believe you are confusing doctrine with policy.  The standard for doctrine in the LDS Church are the STANDARD WORKS.    

 

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 203)

 

"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as a revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

 

Only the prophet will receive revelation for the Church. How can we know when those holding these positions are speaking by the mind and will of the Lord? May I read to you something that has been written for another occasion. We must have in mind that there is only the President of the Church, the presiding high priest, who has the right to receive revelation for the Church, either new or amendatory or to give authoritative interpretation to the scripture which shall be binding on the Church. He is the sole mouthpiece on the earth for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the only true church. He alone may declare the mind and will of God to His people. No officer or any other church in the world has this high right and lofty prerogative. So when any other person, irrespective of who he is, undertakes to do any of these things, you may know that he is not moved upon by the Holy Ghost in so speaking, unless he has special authorization from the President of the Church." (Harold B. Lee, The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, edited by Clyde J. Williams [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996], 544.)

 

And Joseph Smith stated eloquently:

 

“O ye Twelve! and all Saints! profit by this important Key-that in all your trials, troubles, temptations, afflictions, bonds, imprisonments and death, see to it, that you do not betray heaven; that you do not betray Jesus Christ; that you do not betray the brethren; that you do not betray the revelations of God, whether in Bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants, or any other that ever was or ever will be given and revealed unto man in this world or that which is to come.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 3:385)

 

“I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:366)

 

The scriptures speak overwhelmingly in support of the literal GLOBAL flood, a literal fall, a 7,000 year temporal existence of the earth and no Pre-Adamites.  This doctrine has never been changed nor revoked.  The Presidents of the Church have supported the revelations and those who have the spirit of God will not betray them.  I find it interesting that the three pillars of the Church, the core essential doctrines of our faith, the Creation, the Fall and the Atonement have all been ridiculed and rejected by moderns today.  I, with President Benson, would ask, "Are we accepting and teaching what the revelations tell us about the Creation, Adam and the fall of man, and redemption from that fall through the atonement of Christ?"   (Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988], 28 – 29)

[thesometimesaint]

 

I believe you are confusing doctrine with policy.  The standard for doctrine in the LDS Church are the STANDARD WORKS.    

 

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 203)

 

"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as a revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

 

Only the prophet will receive revelation for the Church. How can we know when those holding these positions are speaking by the mind and will of the Lord? May I read to you something that has been written for another occasion. We must have in mind that there is only the President of the Church, the presiding high priest, who has the right to receive revelation for the Church, either new or amendatory or to give authoritative interpretation to the scripture which shall be binding on the Church. He is the sole mouthpiece on the earth for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the only true church. He alone may declare the mind and will of God to His people. No officer or any other church in the world has this high right and lofty prerogative. So when any other person, irrespective of who he is, undertakes to do any of these things, you may know that he is not moved upon by the Holy Ghost in so speaking, unless he has special authorization from the President of the Church." (Harold B. Lee, The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, edited by Clyde J. Williams [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996], 544.)

 

And Joseph Smith stated eloquently:

 

“O ye Twelve! and all Saints! profit by this important Key-that in all your trials, troubles, temptations, afflictions, bonds, imprisonments and death, see to it, that you do not betray heaven; that you do not betray Jesus Christ; that you do not betray the brethren; that you do not betray the revelations of God, whether in Bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants, or any other that ever was or ever will be given and revealed unto man in this world or that which is to come.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 3:385)

 

“I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:366)

 

The scriptures speak overwhelmingly in support of the literal GLOBAL flood, a literal fall, a 7,000 year temporal existence of the earth and no Pre-Adamites.  This doctrine has never been changed nor revoked.  The Presidents of the Church have supported the revelations and those who have the spirit of God will not betray them.  I find it interesting that the three pillars of the Church, the core essential doctrines of our faith, the Creation, the Fall and the Atonement have all been ridiculed and rejected by moderns today.  I, with President Benson, would ask, "Are we accepting and teaching what the revelations tell us about the Creation, Adam and the fall of man, and redemption from that fall through the atonement of Christ?"   (Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988], 28 – 29)

 

 

Last I looked the D&C was actual doctrine of the Church.

 

"The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as a revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth."

 

That is what I in essence said.

 

Only the prophet will receive revelation for the Church. How can we know when those holding these positions are speaking by the mind and will of the Lord? May I read to you something that has been written for another occasion. We must have in mind that there is only the President of the Church, the presiding high priest, who has the right to receive revelation for the Church, either new or amendatory or to give authoritative interpretation to the scripture which shall be binding on the Church. He is the sole mouthpiece on the earth for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the only true church. He alone may declare the mind and will of God to His people. No officer or any other church in the world has this high right and lofty prerogative. So when any other person, irrespective of who he is, undertakes to do any of these things, you may know that he is not moved upon by the Holy Ghost in so speaking, unless he has special authorization from the President of the Church." (Harold B. Lee, The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, edited by Clyde J. Williams [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996], 544.)

 

If it is in reference to non-canonical books that statement would appear to be contradicted by the previous statement.

 

I have no problem with the Bible, Book of Mormon, or the Doctrine and Covenants within the limitations imposed by those books. A Prophet is only a Prophet when acting as such. When can we know he is acting as such? When it is approved by Common Consent.

 

I'm only a lowly member of the Church. But simple science precludes a global flood. Much better to accept that Noah was a Prophet of God, but could only report on what he actually saw. I'll leave the speculations about the scope of the Flood to the Fundamentalists.

[Bob Crockett]

I'm only a lowly member of the Church. But simple science precludes a global flood. Much better to accept that Noah was a Prophet of God, but could only report on what he actually saw. I'll leave the speculations about the scope of the Flood to the Fundamentalists.

How about an earth with just one mountain, Mt. Ararat? Seems the water would cover the earth by more than a mile. Just saying.

[omni]

Actually the Book of Mormon is established doctrine, SEE Articles of Faith.

 

 

 

Of course the BoM is established doctrine, just as the Bible is.  The JST contains no clarification or correction on the matter and no prophets I'm aware of have ever declared the flood being local.   Your argument is suggesting that every story in our scriptures must be approved through common consent in order for it to be considered doctrine.  

 

Yes there was a common consent for the WoW.

 

 

 

I specifically mentioned the prohibition on tea and coffee.  The WoW mentions "hot drinks", however it wasn't till later that it was interpreted as coffee and tea.  To my knowledge, this later interpretation was never voted on by common consent.

 

Yes there was common consent against gay marriage.

 

Same with viewing pornography.

 

 

 

I still haven't been able to find where this was approved as doctrine through common consent.

 

 

 

 

 

We have no doctrine concerning tattoo's, piercings, or sleeveless shirts. We do have doctrine concerning modesty of dress, and our dress must not overtly emphasize the Garments of the Holy Priesthood.

 

 

I'll give you this, although I think I could find quite a few members who would disagree.

[thesometimesaint]

How about an earth with just one mountain, Mt. Ararat? Seems the water would cover the earth by more than a mile. Just saying.

Nice mountain as far as mountains go. But it is not the highest even in Eurasia.

 

Also keep in mind that water has weight(about 8 LBS per gallon). That much water in the atmosphere would crush every living thing and the earth would be as hot as Venus.

Edited November 19, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Of course the BoM is established doctrine, just as the Bible is.  The JST contains no clarification or correction on the matter and no prophets I'm aware of have ever declared the flood being local.   Your argument is suggesting that every story in our scriptures must be approved through common consent in order for it to be considered doctrine.  

 

I specifically mentioned the prohibition on tea and coffee.  The WoW mentions "hot drinks", however it wasn't till later that it was interpreted as coffee and tea.  To my knowledge, this later interpretation was never voted on by common consent.

 

I still haven't been able to find where this was approved as doctrine through common consent.

 

I'll give you this, although I think I could find quite a few members who would disagree.

 

You look long and far for any clarification of the stories in the Scriptures.

See Articles of Faith # 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

 

The WoW doesn't specially mention illicit drugs either. But it would be a fair assumption to believe that it includes them.

 

The ban on SSM or on porn? They are functionally the same. Do not commit adultery or anything like unto it. That is Scriptural D&C 59:6

 

I have no problem with those that want tattoos, piercings, and the like. But if I was a young person looking for that first "REAL" job. I'd follow that wise counsel.

[cdowis]

Can we safely assume the story of Lehi and his family coming to America is not considered doctrine since there has been no common consent vote among the membership? 

 

 

 

 

The arrival in 1847 of the Saints in the Salt Lake Valley is not considered doctrine, but as a factual event.  Hope that helps.

[AndyDnom]

 

1.) Joseph Smith likely translated the Book of Mormon from the metal plates

c - likely a combination of these 2 methods

 

2.) What is LDS Doctrine on Evolution?

c - The church has no official stance on Evolution and teaches the theory at BYU

 

3.) What is LDS Doctrine on the flood

c - While taught as it is written, the Church has no official stance on how widespread was the flood

 

4.) What is the offiicial stance on How was Eve created?

c - While we speak of her being made from a rib we acknowledge that this was symbolic  and figurative

 

5.) Why were Blacks not permitted the Priesthood prior to 1978

b - There is no known Doctrine and any explanantion for why is opinion and not official or binding.

 

 

6.) How old is the Earth in LDS Doctrine

b - The Earth is Millions and perhaps Billions of years old

 

 

7.) In Lds Doctrine where did the Book of Mormon take place

d - In Mesoamerica around Gutamala

 

8.) Tithing is defined in the Church as 10% of your income paid annually - the Church defines this as

d - They restate the essence of 10% of income paid annually and add "No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly." hence leaving the decision between the member and the Lord.

 

9.) Word of Wisdom prohibits Tea, Coffee, and Alcohol being consumed along with Tobacco being used (smoked, dip, eaten all banned).  Which of these things are also prohibited

d - None of the above are officially banned and each member should prayerfully consider if these and any others substance they take  violates the spirit of the law.  But in the end it is between the individual and the Lord

 

10.) In the Church we teach that we have a lay clergy.  What does this mean

c - While local leaders are unpaid, general leaders like Prophet, Apostle, Seventy are paid an modest income and other leaders such as Mission presidents get re-imbursements for come of their living expenses.

 

11 - Book of Abraham was translated with the involvement of some Egyptian papyri.  This papyri is  ________?

c - makes up a very complex issue where we know it is in some way connected to the Book of Abraham, but at least parts of it are standard Egyptian funeral texts that seem unrelated.  We also don't have all the original papyri as some of it burned up in the Chicago Fire.  So While critics claim this translation doesn't fit and is a hoax, we claim all the facts are not present and may never be so we act in faith.

 

12.) Polygamy was __________?

c - started by Joseph Smith wehre in he married or sealed to approximately 33 women while all parties were alive and included some of the se women already being married at the time to other men.

 

13.)  Which statement mopst closely defines LDS Doctrine concerning obedience to Church leaders ?

b - Same as (A) except we acknowledge they error at times but add Even if they are wrong we shall be blessed for following them and should do so anyways.

 

14 .) Books written by General Authorities that are outside the LDS Canon (ex: Bruce R MCConkie's "Mormon Doctrine") are considered

b - Are not approved as Doctrinally correct and only represent the individual who wrote it and it's contents are that writer's sole responsibility.

 

 

It sounds like you are a believing member, but also believe all the answers you put to those questions. I don't personally see how you can believe your answers to questions 1-14 and also believe that God was directing it and that this is his one true church.

[Kevin Christensen]

When we've identified all the falsehoods and errors that circulate in our society like viruses, when we have identified, pilloried and punished the perps, perhaps via Danites, and organized re-education gulags to reshape them into valuable members of society, when we have empathized with the victims of error, validated their pain, and compensated them for their hurts, and regained their trust and devotion, and when we have polished official manuals and member thought into one huge permanently reliable Big-Book-of-What-to-Think to which all can give unquestioning devotion, spiritual submission, and uniform intellectual surrender, will we have then made the final seven Positions of the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth permanently obsolete? Will mature spirituality then be a matter of unquestioning obedience to demonstrably perfect authority? Can we then safely replace "sustaining" our leaders, with the full range of meaning that word carries (uphold, permit, allow, suffer, and endure), with something simpler like "agree with and always follow?" Can we update D&C 1 and remove the blunt declaration that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest" and "inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed" on grounds that such warnings are obsolete?

Just wondering where this is headed, in case I need to pack my bags.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited November 20, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[ERayR]

I'll give you this, although I think I could find quite a few members who would disagree.

 

That is not hard to do.  You could probably find a few members that would disagree on anything you could bring up, including doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

When we've identified all the falsehoods and errors that circulate in our society like viruses, when we have identified, pilloried and punished the perps, perhaps via Danites, and organized re-education gulags to reshape them them into valuable members of society, when we have empathized with the victims of error, validated their pain, and compensated them for their hurts, and regained their trust and devotion, and when we have polished official manuals and member thought into one huge permanently reliable Big-Book-of-What-to-Think to which all can give unquestioning devotion, spiritual submission, and uniform intellectual surrender, will we have then made the final seven Positions of the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth permanently obsolete? Will mature spirituality then be a matter of unquestioning obedience to demonstrably perfect authority? Can we then safely replace "sustaining" our leaders, with the full range of meaning that word carries (uphold, permit, allow, suffer, and endure), with something simpler like "agree with and always follow?" Can we update D&C 1 and remove the blunt declaration that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest" and "inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed" on grounds that such warnings are obsolete?

Just wondering where this is headed, in case I need to pack my bags.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

 

I hope we won't get that Pharisaical. I still have my prick kicker boots, but I really don't want to put them on. 

[cinepro]

See Encyclopedia of Mormonism http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Earth

 

THE GREAT FLOOD. The Old Testament records a flood that was just over fifteen cubits (sometimes assumed to be about twenty-six feet) deep and covered the entire landscape: "And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains. Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, offered this perspective: The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.

 

Two points. I'll make my first here, and the second in my next post.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism quote (above) excerpts John A. Widstoe's writings on the flood. thesometimesaint has used this excerpt to imply that Widstoe specifically, and thus the LDS Church in general, is at least open to the idea of a local (i.e. non-global) flood.

This is not the case. John Widstoe believed strongly in a global flood, and was simply explaining that we don't know exactly how that worked. But at no point does he acknowledge (either explicitly or implicitly) that it might have been a local flood. This is especially obvious becuase were that a possibility, it would be the simplest and most helpful answer! The entire article is written around the following question:

 

22. DID THE FLOOD COVER THE HIGHEST MOUNTAINS OF EARTH?

 

If we are open to the possibility of a local flood, then Widstoe's answer would be this:

Probably not. Evidence indicates the flood was probably limited to a smaller region of the planet, and therefore not all mountains would have been covered.

 

But instead, he offers this lengthy discourse on all the ways the flood can still be global but "fit" the evidence.  If you want the most relevant parts, skip to the bolded paragraphs, and then ask yourself if John A. Widstoe was open to the idea of a local flood (and, by extension, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article that quotes him).

 

22. DID THE FLOOD COVER THE HIGHEST MOUNTAINS OF EARTH?

 

  This question, really of insignificant importance, is a good example of man-made objections to the sacred character of the Bible, and therefore to faith.

 

  The coming of the flood and its extent and duration, are described in the seventh chapter of the Book of Genesis. The account states that "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Genesis 7:19-20)

 

  A cubit, an ancient and well-known measure of length, is the distance from a man's elbow to the end of his middle finger. The Egyptians fixed the length of a cubit as 20.61 of our inches; the Greeks, 18:25 inches; the Romans, 17.4 inches; the Hebrews, 17.58 inches; and the English, 18 inches. The variation is small, from eighteen to less than twenty-one inches.

 

  If we employ the largest of these values, 20.61 inches, fifteen cubits would be something less than twenty-six-feet. This, then, was the depth of the flood, according to Genesis.

 

  The suggestion has been made that the flood filled every hollow and valley until the earth was a great sphere of water, covering the highest mountain peaks twenty-six feet deep, Mount Ararat, seventeen thousand feet high, "upon the mountains" of which the ark rested, would according to this view have been completely under water. It is doubtful whether the water in the sky and all the oceans would suffice to cover the earth so completely.

 

  Another suggestion is that the earth at that time was so flat that a depth of water of twenty-six feet would cover the highest hill. There is no existing evidence of this supposition; and Mount Ararat did exist then according to the record.

 

  It has also been suggested that a blanket of water twenty-six feet thick lay up and down the sides of every hill, mountain, and valley. This would seem to be in defiance of the law of gravity, though under a long-continued, furious rainfall such a layer, not too thick, might roll down every slope.

 

  The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.

 

  The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us.

 

  Latter-day Saints know, through modern revelation, that the Garden of Eden was on the North American continent and that Adam and Eve began their conquest of the earth in the upper part of what is now the state of Missouri. It seems very probable that the children of our first earthly parents moved down along the fertile, pleasant lands of the Mississippi valley. The great floods that have often occurred there make the description in Genesis seem very reasonable indeed. And if the historian saw the

flood there, it is not unlikely that the waters covered the highest points or peaks, for there the mountains are but hills.

 

  Great floods have visited the earth. That has been amply proved. For example, Professor C. Leonard Woolley, studying through excavations the ancient history of Mesopotamia, has found indisputable evidences of a flood in the neighborhood of Abraham's ancestral city of Ur. Whether that flood is the great flood of Genesis is not certain, for we do not know whether at that time the children of Adam had spread from their original home in what is now America into the lands now denominated Asia. (Woolley, The Sumerians)

 

  Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which is gloriously filling "the measure of its creation." They look upon the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an immersion of the earth in water (D. & C. 88:25; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:274; Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 603; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, 1:331).

 

  Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial. When a person is baptized, it does not matter how far under the water he is brought, nor whether every part of him is at the same depth. The essential part of the symbolism is that he should be completely immersed.

 

  So with the story of the flood. All parts of the earth were under water at the same time. In some places the layer of water might have been twenty-six feet deep or more; in others, as on sloping hillsides, it might have been only a fraction of an inch in depth. That the whole earth, however, was under water at the same time was easily possible under a terrific, long-continued downpour, such as is described in Genesis. The depth of the layer of water is of no consequence.

 

  Many Bible accounts that trouble the inexperienced reader become clear and acceptable if the essential meaning of the story is sought out. To read the Bible fairly, it must be read as President Brigham Young suggested: "Do you read the scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them?" (Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 197, 198). This is our guide. The scriptures must be read intelligently.

 

Widtsoe, John A. Evidences and Reconciliations. Salt Lake City, 1943. 

(Emphasis Added)

[cinepro]

Second Point about whether the Church, and specifically the writers of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, are open to the idea of a local flood:

 

Encyclopedia of Mormonism

 

Noah

 

Noah is one of God's most notable prophets, Patriarchs, and ministering messengers. He became a second father-with adam-of all mankind following the Flood and later returned to earth as the angel Gabriel to announce the births of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ (HC 3:386; TPJS, p. 157). LDS revelation has amplified what is known about Noah in the Bible.

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Noah

Emphasis added.

 

If the flood wasn't global, then people outside of the flood area would have survived, so in what way could we consider Noah a "second father - with Adam - of all mankind"?

[Rob Osborn]

Yeah, the flood just doesn't speak of a localized event. It was definitely global

[Stone holm]

Guatemala is in central America. 

 

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

 

THE GREAT FLOOD. The Old Testament records a flood that was just over fifteen cubits (sometimes assumed to be about twenty-six feet) deep and covered the entire landscape: "And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains. Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, offered this perspective: The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.

The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us [Widtsoe, p. 127].

 

Your Bishop gets to record if you are full tithe payer of not, he doesn't get to decide what a full tithe is.

Okay, but if you are baptized and your big toe sticks out of the water they do it over, given the flood has been from time to time referenced as the baptism of the Earth (I believe so don't CFR me on this) , how does that work. On the other hand wouldn't it actually increase the size of the Earth if everything was covered with water.

[thesometimesaint]

Then we are faced with the a conundrum. It is scientifically impossible for life to exist with the entire planet to be covered with water to a depth greater than Mount Everest.

 

Interestingly many thought Venus had people on it, including LDS Prophets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_in_fiction

 

Welcome to Venus.

 

Vapor canopy. This model proposes that much of the Flood water was suspended overhead until the 40 days of rain which caused the Flood.

• How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?
• If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
• If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
• A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
• Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.