Fair And "the Thinking Has Been Done"

[frank_jessop]

For example, if I read my scriptures, read the teachings of the prophets, and pray about them. And I come to my own conclusion/witness that Brigham was right in his teachings about Adam-God and that our current teachings as established around the turn of the 1900s doesn't fit in my mind.

The church 100% allows me to believe as I see fit.

The church MIGHT discipline me for teaching heresy if I tell anyone in Church I believe it.

The church WILL discipline me if I publicly disagree with the current understanding AND publicly promote Adam-God.

JLHPROF, has the "thinking been done" on whether or not Adam-God/eligibility for the Priesthood/age of baptism/male primary teachers must teach in pairs or a window must be on the door? And if the thinking has been done is "the debate over" regarding those things?

In my opinion, it is clear what Church standard:

When the Prophet speaks "the thinking has been done" and "the debate is over"; with exceptions of course, but exceptions are not the rule. Everyone is entitled to come to their own conclusions; however, the standard for the any particular subject, binding on the Church, will be the standard sent forth from the presiding authorities.

Example of an exception: When a Prophet made a statement against caffeine consumption during a TV. interview

[JLHPROF]

JLHPROF, has the "thinking been done" on whether or not Adam-God/eligibility for the Priesthood/age of baptism/male primary teachers must teach in pairs or a window must be on the door? And if the thinking has been done is "the debate over" regarding those things?

In my opinion, it is clear what Church standard:

When the Prophet speaks "the thinking has been done" and "the debate is over"; with exceptions of course, but exceptions are not the rule. Everyone is entitled to come to their own conclusions; however, the standard for the any particular subject, binding on the Church, will be the standard sent forth from the presiding authorities.

Example of an exception: When a Prophet made a statement against caffeine consumption during a TV. interview

 

Absolutely disagree.  If you are talking about matters of practice then the Church has every right to hold people to a standard. 

 

But when the 2nd President of the Church teaches a doctrine and the 12 President of the Church teach a different doctrine and the current President of the Church teaches yet another doctrine, I should be able to decide for myself which doctrine I believe to be true.  I do NOT believe I have to agree with the current president just because he's current.

 

Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith all accepted Adam- God to one degree or another (yes, I know, it's debatable how much).

Spencer W. Kimball called it a heresy.  Current leaders haven't spoken on it recently but almost certainly agree with Pres. Kimball.

 

I revere all these men equally as prophets and I have every right to pray, study and decide for myself which of their interpretations of scriptures I feel to be correct.  They are all God's mouthpieces and I shouldn't be forced to agree doctrinally with the current leaders for no other reason than that they're current.  I should be allowed to believe any Mormon doctrine taught by any prophet from any era.  After all, we are talking about a matter of personal religious belief here, not practices.  When we dogmatically force members to follow creeds no good will come.  Joseph Smith taught us that.

 

But as for something like practicing polygamy, well, now my practices are something the Church has every right to put a standard on.  I may believe that the Word of Wisdom doesn't refer to caffeine, but if the Church bans the drinking of caffeine it has every right to hold me to that unscriptural standard to be in its organization.

[frank_jessop]

 

Absolutely disagree. If you are talking about matters of practice then the Church has every right to hold people to a standard.

Do you "absolutely disagree" that when the presiding authorities set forth Doctrine, the debate is over?

[DBMormon]

 

Do you "absolutely disagree" that when the presiding authorities set forth Doctrine, the debate is over?

Is the Debate over? No  Do I absolutely disagree?  Yes, as the Church has at times perpetuated false Doctrine - see my podcast on repercussions of the race article

The Church has taught false Doctrines at times with seemingly unanimous approval.  Then only to turn such Doctrine into disavowed theories.

Edited May 24, 2014 by DBMormon

[JLHPROF]

 

Do you "absolutely disagree" that when the presiding authorities set forth Doctrine, the debate is over?

Yes I disagree. When it comes to doctrinal belief anyway. Otherwise when Brigham taught Adam-God nobody (like Talmage did for instance) would have had any right to suggest an alternate idea and land us with the doctrine we have today.

Mormon doctrine HAS changed and evolved, sometimes by revelation, sometimes by academics, and so is never final no matter how much thinking has been done or by whom.

Edited May 24, 2014 by JLHPROF

[frank_jessop]

Mormon doctrine HAS changed and evolved, sometimes by revelation, sometimes by academics, and so is never final no matter how much thinking has been done or by whom.

And until such time when the "change" came about, the Church operated under the standing Doctrine. While things have changed, the Church operated under status quo (not a bad thing), until the change was instituted - thus the debate was over until the presiding authorities instituted the change.

[frank_jessop]

Is the Debate over? No Do I absolutely disagree? Yes, as the Church has at times perpetuated false Doctrine - see my podcast on repercussions of the race article

The Church has taught false Doctrines at times with seemingly unanimous approval.  Then only to turn such Doctrine into disavowed theories.

I understanding you think the Church perpetuated a false doctrine, but I disagree with you stance and that the Church has not claimed it was "false Doctrine". Edited May 24, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Coreyb]

 

Do you "absolutely disagree" that when the presiding authorities set forth Doctrine, the debate is over?

Define what setting forth Doctrine is. In my view, no presiding authorities have set forth doctrine recently. The current preaching is not "our" doctrine unless they present it in unity and we as a church accept it as such. If our doctrine is only what the current president of the church is teaching right now, then we don't have any doctrines on the nature and relationships of the Gods, because President Monson doesn't really preach on those things.

[theplains]

When our leaders speak the debate is over. When they propose a plan--it is God's plan.

 

 

Suppose a leader teaches something to the entire Church at a general conference and you

get a personal revelation by the Holy Spirit saying that the leader is incorrect and is deceiving

people.

 

How can your local bishop help you fix the false teaching?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Rob Osborn]

Suppose a leader teaches something to the entire Church at a general conference and you

get a personal revelation by the Holy Spirit saying that the leader is incorrect and is deceiving

people.

 

How can your local bishop help you fix the false teaching?

 

Thanks,

Jim

Seek guidance from teh Holy Ghost. Then establish a written document stating your opinions and beliefs and present it to your immediate local church leader. If your complaint or clarification is noteworthy or even upon your request, they can then send it up the chain of comand to seek clarification from the actual leaders of the church in SLC headquarters. It is then after you receive the answer (may come in the leaders changing actual doctrine) you will then receive a confirmation of the spirit of its truthfulness. It has to be this way so that you do not get splinter groups breaking away from the church or members who take it upon themselves to preach doctrines to people of their own beliefs, true or not. Gods church is a house of order.

[JLHPROF]

And until such time when the "change" came about, the Church operated under the standing Doctrine. While things have changed, the Church operated under status quo (not a bad thing), until the change was instituted - thus the debate was over until the presiding authorities instituted the change.

So truth and personal study and spiritual witness mean nothing as long as our personal beliefs match the status quo doctrine of the day?

I don't accept that.

[frank_jessop]

So truth and personal study and spiritual witness mean nothing as long as our personal beliefs match the status quo doctrine of the day?

I don't accept that.

I am sure you are welcome to believe what ever you please. However, your personal beliefs are your personal beliefs. What "The Church" believes is quite a different matter, and only the presiding authorities have authority to establish what those beliefs are. And when they speak for the Church, the debate is over and the thinking is done; meaning the Church will operate as they have directed until such time that - if at all - new revelation(s) are given.

If God's House is a house of order - and such prinicipal LDS accept, then it is only orderly in following a the principal that the presiding authorities speak for the Church and establish what the Church teaches, believes, and how it will operate. Anything less is chaos.

[thesometimesaint]

I am sure you are welcome to believe what ever you please. However, your personal beliefs are your personal beliefs. What "The Church" believes is quite a different matter, and only the presiding authorities have authority to establish what those beliefs are. And when they speak for the Church, the debate is over and the thinking is done; meaning the Church will operate as they have directed until such time that - if at all - new revelation(s) are given.

If God's House is a house of order - and such prinicipal LDS accept, then it is only orderly in following a the principal that the presiding authorities speak for the Church and establish what the Church teaches, believes, and how it will operate. Anything less is chaos.

 

Agreed.