What Beliefs (If Any) Do You As A Member Hold Differently Than The Official Church Position?

[strappinglad]

I believe in UFOs and Bigfoot, although I'm not sure if there is an official Church policy about such.

I believe that reincarnation is a viable possibility.

I believe that the Bible is the word of God , but when it comes to the Old Testament, God has some " splainan' " to do.

[JLHPROF]

What do you mean by "the status of Adam and Eve when they entered the Garden"?

Do believe that Adam was without Eve for a time in the Garden?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

I believe they were resurrected immortal beings - Gods.  The fall occurred when they became mortal again.

[strappinglad]

I believe they were resurrected immortal beings - Gods.  The fall occurred when they became mortal again.

Then what is to be done about Judith ?

[halconero]

I don't think this officially different from the official position exactly, but I wholeheartedly believe that the creation, and dominion over worlds and a multitude of children is the eventual blessing of the exalted. I also believe that this is taught explicitly in the scriptures and manuals of the Church. Attempts to say otherwise are generally objections to the idea that we will not be under God the Father's sovereignty or the oversimplification of the doctrine.

 

Do we get our own planet? Nah

 

Will we create our own planets, stars, galaxies, and place our children thereon? Absolutely. 

[Coreyb]

Then what is to be done about Judith ?

Lilith?

[JLHPROF]

Then what is to be done about Judith ?

 

Lilith?

 

Yes, all the Gods are polygamists...in my not-Church-position opinion.

[BCSpace]

I want this thread to be positive, but what I am hoping to achieve is almost simple and introductory. 

In as brief terms as possible where do you feel your biggest digression from official Church Position comes and how do you justify it doctrinally?

 

 

Global Flood. Too much evidence against. I justify it by thinking the Church has merely adopted Christian tradition in the absence of direct revelation on the subject.  It's mentioning in the scriptures are just a retelling of an already established mythology with some true historical characters attached.

 

 

Some examples (that I know exist on this board) are those who support SSM, believe that polygamy was sinful or never happened at all, support OW, pro-evolution, believe we can be led astray, and SO many more.

 

Evolution is not in conflict with LDS doctrine on the Creation.

 

1. I have studied the Adam-God doctrine as taught by Brigham Young and other leaders and have found it makes more sense to my mind than our current teachings on the Godhead.  This includes the identity of Jehovah, the identity of Christ's father, the status of Adam and Eve when they entered the Garden and other related ideas.

 

I have studied the same and indepently came up with Adam Sr/Jr though Elden Watson beat me to it and went deeper.  Neither Adam God or Adam Sr/Jr are or were doctrine.

 

I think I pretty much agree with everything else the Church teaches.

 

 

Me too. Though in a minor sense there is the notion that the Garden was on the American continent.  Neither of the two verses used to justify that imply any such thing.

 

Also, the D&C interpretation of Jesus' birthday, recently enshrined in doctrine and perhaps long before, I disagree with though I admit the possibility. I just don't think the verse is trying to be specific the way it's worded.

Edited November 5, 2014 by BCSpace

[mfbukowski]

This is the key statement through which to understand what your poll means:

 

I accept all the official doctrines of the LDS Church, but am well aware that the primary problem in making such a statement is that there are folks on this board who make the same declaration, yet differ with me (and with others) as to what the actual official doctrines of the LDS Church truly are.

 

Some of them even resort to name-calling and cries of heresy whenever their particular version of "official" doctrines of the LDS Church is not adhered to.  They usually cite and quote their favorite General Authority(s) or Scriptural source(s) in defense of their view, at the same time ignoring other GAs and Scriptures that do not necessarily say the same thing -- or even take a very different position.  And they may appeal to selected Church manuals or other publications to claim them as "official" sources.  They typically fail to place their individual views into a larger context.

 

Those with an appropriate sense of perspective can take a cue from the hot disagreement between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt:  Orson was punished for not accepting Brother Brigham's  view, but Orson's position is normative for the LDS Church today.  Knowing what is in fact the official doctrine may not always be so easy to establish.

Another issue, besides defining what official doctrine IS, is deciding how one determines if one's interpretation of the semantics of the "official doctrine" is itself official.

For example, I believe there was "no death before the fall". That soumds like a pretty clear affirmation of a doctrinal position.

But for me, what those words mean, was that there could be no human conception for the word "Death" until our cognitive ability had progressed to the point where the social context of what defines the word "death" to us today, had been achieved.

The entire lingusitic concept of good and evil and the concept of "death" itself would have to have developed before one could say that "death" as we know the word, existed.

So yes, I believe that "there was no death before the fall" but what I mean by those words is not the standard understanding of what that means. So is my view "doctrinal" or not?

It becomes clear that all these sorts of discussions are based on a similar understanding of the terms of doctrine themselves, which understanding may or may not exist.

[strappinglad]

Is that like saying there was no rain before the flood ? +

[Guest]

Oh JLHPROF, you are always pushing the limits aren't you

I think this thread is ill conceived.

[mfbukowski]

Is that like saying there was no rain before the flood ? +

What is a "flood" to rocks and mountains? It's the old question of if we want to call something a "sound" if no one hears the vibrations of the atmosphere.

What is the "color" of radio waves?

This is not about metaphysics or reality - it is a question of definitions. Are we killing carrots by eathing them? Are we murdering them? The questions and answers really become meaningless because they all rely on arbitrary definitions of terms.

Was there a "before" before time was reckoned?

"Go down and do such and so and CALL (define it as) the (first, second third) day"

"Go down and define this process as "Death"

Edited November 5, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

I believe we have too many meetings.

[Tsuzuki]

I think this thread is ill conceived.

I think this thread is awesome.

[Tsuzuki]

Another difference I have with official LDS church teachings is that I don't believe in the historical existence of Jesus.

[Robert F. Smith]

Apparently eating a chocolate bar with less than .5% of coffee is breaking the word of wisdom, which allegedly one Bishop would deny a recommend to someone, I say nay nay eat it and enjoy it!!

The LDS Church recently clarified that caffeine is not covered by the Word of Wisdom, and it is permissible to drink caffeinated drinks.  http://en.fairmormon.org/Word_of_Wisdom/Cola_drinks_and_caffeine  .

This would presumably permit the ingestion of chocolate (a long-time Mormon staple), which contains an ingredient very similar to caffeine (theobromine bicolor).  Since chocolate is a product of Book of Mormon lands, the Nephites and Lamanites probably used it regularly.

[katherine the great]

^ So are magic mushrooms.

[Robert F. Smith]

^ So are magic mushrooms.

You mean amanita muscaria is permissible too?

 

Sounds like something Don Juan Matus (Yaqui sorceror) used on young Carlos Castaneda.

[JLHPROF]

I think this thread is ill conceived.

 

Because all members agree on all doctrines?  Or because we shouldn't discuss which doctrines we disagree on?

[JLHPROF]

Another issue, besides defining what official doctrine IS, is deciding how one determines if one's interpretation of the semantics of the "official doctrine" is itself official.

For example, I believe there was "no death before the fall". That soumds like a pretty clear affirmation of a doctrinal position.

But for me, what those words mean, was that there could be no human conception for the word "Death" until our cognitive ability had progressed to the point where the social context of what defines the word "death" to us today, had been achieved.

The entire lingusitic concept of good and evil and the concept of "death" itself would have to have developed before one could say that "death" as we know the word, existed.

So yes, I believe that "there was no death before the fall" but what I mean by those words is not the standard understanding of what that means. So is my view "doctrinal" or not?

It becomes clear that all these sorts of discussions are based on a similar understanding of the terms of doctrine themselves, which understanding may or may not exist.

 

I'm not as concerned about "official doctrine" as I am about Church position.  If it's Church position that Jehovah in the OT is Christ's pre-mortal spirit and I as a member disagree, that's not difficult to define.  If it's Church position that nobody died before Adam and Eve fell and you disagree then that is not difficult to define.  Overcomplicating terms is just pedantry.  It has its place but in a discussion like this it's simple - pick a Church teaching - agree or disagree.  Simple.

I hate semantics if they prevent simple discussion.

[Garden Girl]

I question the Garden of Eden being on this continent...  because it's not just the GoE... it's everything that happened after A and E were banished and went out into the dark and dreary world...

 

Am on the fence about a global flood, lean toward regional...

 

No death before the Fall...

 

I do not believe that a "continuation of the seeds" refers to our concept or practice of creating life... I tend toward petrie dishes, etc.

 

GG

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I believe that most of Genesis is Myth and that the Exodus is greatly exaggerated legend.

 

I don't believe in polygamy.

 

I support same sex marriage (civilly).

 

I believe in evolution, don't believe that all the human race descended from 8 people who lived 4500 years ago (Noah's flood).

 

I utterly reject the 14 fundamentals.

 

I think the church teaching that sexual sin is like murder is wrong and a misreading of scripture.

 

I think that the idea the prophet can't lead the church astray is false.

 

I believe that God will lead people where they need to go and in many cases that is not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

In short, I'm pretty much a heretic. 

[mnn727]

I do not believe the O.T. is inspired of God and in fact has little to do with Christianity - thus making statements by Prophets and Apostles of this dispensation about the O.T. incorrect - I believe it should hold the same place as the Apocrypha does today in our Church.

I believe the writers of the N.T. took a lot of liberty with facts.

While I believe the Apostles and Prophets are good men, I do not believe they have a direct line to God.

I believe the KJV Bible needs to be removed as the prime English text of the Bible and a modern English version used instead.

 

and like SeekingUnderstanding above

I support same sex marriage (civilly and by Churches that agree with it, I also believe no Church should ever be forced to marry 2 or more people of the same sex).

I believe in evolution, and believe God used evolution to further his plan.

I believe that God will lead people where they need to go and in many cases that is not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Edited November 5, 2014 by mnn727

[Buckeye]

I believe that most of Genesis is Myth and that the Exodus is greatly exaggerated legend.

 

I don't believe in polygamy.

 

I support same sex marriage (civilly).

 

I believe in evolution, don't believe that all the human race descended from 8 people who lived 4500 years ago (Noah's flood).

 

I utterly reject the 14 fundamentals.

 

I think the church teaching that sexual sin is like murder is wrong and a misreading of scripture.

 

I think that the idea the prophet can't lead the church astray is false.

 

I believe that God will lead people where they need to go and in many cases that is not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

In short, I'm pretty much a heretic. 

 

My heresy is fairly similar to Seeking Understanding's.

 

I could also add the following beliefs (I'll leave out minor stuff):

1. I am not convinced that the ordinances of the church must be performed for every person's salvation. I do strongly believe that the ordinances of the church point people towards God and that they are as good a means as any to accomplish His purposes, but I do not have a testimony that everyone will need to be baptized, confirmed, etc. by the LDS priesthood authority in order to reach their full potential.
2. I am not convinced that celestial bodies have 10 fingers, 10 toes, stand between 5-6 feet in height, or share any other characteristics that we would recognize as being "human." Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if God preferred the shape of a dolphin on most days. I do believe that celestial beings have physical material, whatever "flesh and bone" means.
3. I tend to believe that we do not have one Heavenly Father and one Heavenly Mother, but thousands and thousands. In that regard, even is sexual relations are part of a celestial experience, I do not believe they are necessary to be viewed as a father or mother. And if sexuality is part of the celestial experience, I wouldn't be surprised if some of my heavenly parents are gay.
4. I tend to believe that reincarnation plays some role in the plan of salvation. If humans are to be resurrected, then I can't draw a line that would exclude any other beings from the same joy. But if all life that has ever existed on this planet is placed in one sphere at one time there simply is not enough room. Just imagine how full the forests would be if every sapling that every took start was allowed to become a full tree, or the oceans if every plankton existed at the same time. For me, the best solution to this dilemma is reincarnation. A close second is multi-verses.
5. I believe that, in the end, everyone on this message board will be good friends.

[Alan]

1. I do not believe Joseph practiced polygamy.

 

2. I believe that reincarnation (rebirth) occurs in certain, mostly exceptional, circumstances.

 

3. I believe adultery is not next to murder in seriousness; we misunderstand Alma's teaching.

 

4. I believe Joseph designated his son, Joseph Smith III, as his successor according to the principles outlined in D&C 43.

 

5. I don't believe we now have a "full" prophet in the Joseph Smith sense; the church is under apostolic administration and has been since the martyrdom.

 

6. I believe the last "thus saith the Lord" revelation the church received was D&C 136 (the last verse pretty much says that).

 

7. I do not believe we will ever be a God; but we can be a god.

[JLHPROF]

Wow, thanks guys!

 

Some of your beliefs and perspectives I already knew, but I am finding this give me a much better understanding of where each of you are coming from.

I am also astonished at some of the beliefs held by active Church members - I think there are many of us here (myself included) that could face discipline if we were to start preaching our beliefs in Sunday School (or even to member friends).

 

Mormonism, even within the Church and ignoring other Mormon groups, is much more of a tapestry of beliefs than you would ever know to look at Church materials, conferences, gatherings etc.