rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 At what point does being "open" about their unbelief become the teaching of false doctrine, an a potentially harmful offense that, last I heard, makes one subject to Church discipline? I don't have a good answer to that one but I suspect we'll have to come up with one in the coming years.
thesometimesaint Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Belief has nothing to do with commitment to the Gospel. If faith and a desire to believe is acceptable to Christ then I'm not sure why any of us should set a different standard. Actually it is part and parcel of the Gospel. The devils believe yet tremble. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I don't have a good answer to that one but I suspect we'll have to come up with one in the coming years.I think it will be decided on a case-by-case basis under divine guidance -- as it is done now. 2
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 That is always the question. Why belong to any organization you don't believe in? We all have our personal questions about the Gospel, and our role in it. Questions aren't the problem. It is a problem when we use our membership in the Church to lead others astray. I'm a bit of a sticker when it comes to historicity. While not a literalist I do believe there really were Nephites. The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our restored religion, and failure to accept its Truth Claims does present serious problems for a TR applicant.SEE TR question. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days? Well now you've expanded it into different topics: Belief in the organization.Book of Mormon as keystone.Truth claims in/of the Book of Mormon.Restoration of the gospel. Yes they can be connected but they are also independent questions. Having a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these, the latter days, does not require a belief in the literal history of the Book of Mormon.
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I think it will be decided on a case-by-case basis under divine guidance -- as it is done now. Given current trajectories, I think we'll arrive at the day when there just isn't enough ecclesiastical leader time to continue discussing it on a case-by-case basis. I think local leaders will look to our general authorities for more global answers.
bluebell Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I haven't read the whole thread so this has probably already been stated, but i do think the church wants people who don't believe in the Book of Mormon. They just don't want them to retain that disbelief. 3
sethpayne Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Actually it is part and parcel of the Gospel. The devils believe yet tremble. That's the point. Devils believe and it is does them no good whatsoever.
CV75 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 So is there room for someone who doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon as a historical record (as Joseph Smith claimed it was)? And if so, how many people are there room for until it fundamentally changes the nature of what it means to be a "Mormon"?This kind of thing strikes me as "odd" -- people who have the Gift of the Holy Ghost choosing to put their wherewithal into highlighting what they don't believe in... especially upon such a narrow subject. Kind of like those folks who, in the name of their faith dedicate themselves to picking apart another faith. Most LDS I know who strive to follow the Spirit put their wherewithal into just living the religion pure and undefiled. Doing otherwise would force a fundamental change to who they really are. But of course we should make room for such folks, for they are no “odder” than the young woman who was accommodated to bring her pet chicken to Church.
strappinglad Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Having a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these, the latter days, does not require a belief in the literal history of the Book of Mormon. That's like saying you have a testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ , but don't believe He was resurrected. It then becomes a case of the blind leading the blind. Watch out for that hole ! 1
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 That's like saying you have a testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ , but don't believe He was resurrected.It then becomes a case of the blind leading the blind. Watch out for that hole ! I disagree. I don't have a testimony of the Book of Mormon as a history book. I do have a testimony of it as the word of God.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Given current trajectories, I think we'll arrive at the day when there just isn't enough ecclesiastical leader time to continue discussing it on a case-by-case basis. I think local leaders will look to our general authorities for more global answers.Church discipline is administered under the auspices of stake leaders. As the Church expands and the administrative workload increases, additional stakes are created accordingly. That's the genius of the Lord's plan. I see no cause for inordinate alarm. 1
canard78 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 The question is not really whether there is room for those with doubts in the Church. Of course there is! The question becomes one of why certain 'doubters' want to remain in the Church. A recent post on another website took me to one of Dehlin's Facebook comments in which he argued that it is fundamentally dishonest to tell someone that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are true when the evidence actually leaves no room for that kind of belief. At that point, I think one has to wonder if it isn't a person's entire purpose to 'fundamentally change the nature of what it means to be a "Mormon"'. My dear mother had a significant spiritual experience in her 20s that convinced her that God wanted her to be a member of the church. For the next 30 years she was certain that Mormonism was the place for her to be, but always harbored a large dose of uncertainty about the first vision and Book of Mormon. In her words she thought: "pull the other one Joseph, it's got bells on it." Despite this she never wavered in her conviction that Mormonism was where God wanted to be. She tried to avoid having to teach restoration lessons where possible but fully participated in other aspects of discussion and gospel teaching. Finally, in her 50s, she gained a personal (and since-then, unshaken) conviction of the truth of the first vision and Book of Mormon's authenticity. So yes, it's possible to be an active participant without a conviction about the Book of Mormon. 4
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 So yes, it's possible to be an active participant without a conviction about the Book of Mormon. Absolutely! I taught a lovely woman on my mission, a teacher of French, who felt compelled to become a Church member despite the fact that she merely hoped that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. As with your mother, her hope was indeed confirmed to her personally but only after some time in the Church. This is a normal process, and I can't think of a single person who takes issue with letting people have time and space in which to develop their faith, seek for answers, etc. I think it may be a different thing to give time and space in our meetings to people who are 100% convinced that our foundational scriptures are fraudulent and that anyone who teaches otherwise whilst being aware of criticisms is a liar who must be shamed and corrected. 1
readstoomuch Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 What about someone who wants to believe or hopes it (whatever that may be-BoM, Christ, Church,etc) it is true? I can't say I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, should they throw me out with the bath water? We have to accept some form of unbelief or sin, otherwise the buildings willBe empty.
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 What about someone who wants to believe or hopes it (whatever that may be-BoM, Christ, Church,etc) it is true? Nurturing such desires is one of the major reasons God gave us the Church. 2
The Nehor Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 What about someone who wants to believe or hopes it (whatever that may be-BoM, Christ, Church,etc) it is true? I can't say I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, should they throw me out with the bath water? We have to accept some form of unbelief or sin, otherwise the buildings willBe empty.For those who hope it is true I want them in the Church. For those unsure I want them in. Those who actively disbelieve I want them in but not teaching or leading. 4
Tacenda Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 For those who hope it is true I want them in the Church. For those unsure I want them in. Those who actively disbelieve I want them in but not teaching or leading.Sweet!
strappinglad Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) It seems that there are a significant number who have a problem with historicity and Christ. http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b7.htm And another set: http://www.religioustolerance.org/resurrec8.htm Edited January 8, 2015 by strappinglad
Michael Sanders Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Yes - we should not cast out unbelievers or non-members from our meetings that are "held before the world" but invite them to come unto Christ. We also should not cast out anyone who is "earnestly seeking the kingdom...who are not of the church." But with regard to members it is a bit different - a member of the church should maintain "good standing" - perhaps in LDS circles this equates to being temple worthy. However, as it relates to "beliefs" I think we should try to accommodate different understandings on faith issues to a degree - but the spirit in how the saints conduct themselves is paramount. I take this principle from the Book of Mormon which says that among the Nephites "there was no law against a man's belief" but men were only punished for "crimes which he had done, therefore, all men were on equal grounds." I understand that this provision may have been in the civil arena, but I think the principle applies. In the early church the articles and covenants (LDS Section 20) were the articles of faith and practice of the church - dubbed the constitution of the church. If you analyze that text you will see that maintaining certain "beliefs" and manifesting before the church a "godly walk and conversation...that there may be works and faith agreeable to the Holy Scriptures" are requisite to be in "good standing" among the brethren. I submit that to the direct degree that you believe in each statement of the articles is a gauge for if you are fully in the faith or not - this is our membership manual. For example: Believe that the church was brought forth and organized by the will of God on April 6, 1830Believe that commandments were given to Joseph and in his subsequent calling and ordination along with OliverBelieve that he became entangled in sin and upon repentance was visited by a holy angelBelieve that God gave him commandments and power to translate the Book of MormonBelieve that the Book of Mormon is a record of a fallen people and contains the fullness of the gospel which was given by inspirationBelieve that its coming forth was confirmed to others by the ministering of angels (3 & 8 witnesses)Believe that it is a second witness to the Bible and that the Holy Scriptures are trueBelieve that God does inspire men and call them to holy works in every generation and he is the same yesterday, today, and foreverBelieve that the world shall be judged by these great witnessesBelieve certain things about God, his creation, the nature of man, and the fallBelieve certain things about Jesus Christ and his mortal mission, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension to the FatherBelieve and be baptized for the remission of sin and endure to the endBelieve in the words of the holy prophets, the Holy Ghost, and the gifts and callings of GodBelieve that men must repent, be sanctified, might fall from grace, pray always, etc..Believe in the ordinances of the church and observe them properly - baptism, sacrament, blessing of children, laying on of hands, ordination, etc...Believe in the priesthood and government of the ChurchBelieve in the age of accountabilityBelieve that you must attend church regularly and be accountable to one anotherBelieve in church discipline and that members being overtaken in a fault are to be dealt with according to the scripturesBelieve in and be numbered on the rolls of the church or blotted out if in transgression And if you believe in all these things you should be considered a "regular member and in good standing" as opposed to a member not in good standing or considered "weak" in the faith. In fact, if you cannot ascribe to these articles you are in fact on the path to becoming a non-member. If you cannot sign on to these basic understandings as articles of faith and belief - then why be apart of the work? I think this is different than someone who is searching or seeking for such testimony. I saw the Community of Christ experiment with this first hand by saying that belief in the Book of Mormon was not a litmus test for faith and not necessary - I submit that the results were disastrous - now it it just a liberal protestant denomination for the most part. As far as controversial issues being brought up in church teaching (Sunday School or LDS Primary) that is probably unwise and divisive. I like old RLDS approach to such matters found in General Conference Resolution No. 222 adopted September 29, 1879 as it related to acceptance of the D&C by some members: "Whereas, Certain rumors had obtained currency that the church had not at any time so attested the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and the later revelations given to the church, by vote and affirmation, that they should form with the Bible and the Book of Mormon, a standard of reference in case of controversy and difference of opinion upon questions of doctrine and practice in the church; therefore to remedy this defect if it existed, the resolution referred to was introduced and passed. We are further of the opinion, that it is not the intent and meaning of the said resolution to make a belief in the revelations in the Book of Covenants, or the abstract doctrines possibly contained in it, a test of reception and fellowship in the church; but that the things therein contained relating to the doctrine, rules of procedure and practice in the church; should govern the ministry and elders as representatives of the church. We are further of the opinion, that, while it is not intended, or indeed practicable to bind or proscribe the liberty of conscience, whereby violence is done to the honesty and integrity of the people by prescribing dogmas and tenets other than the plain provisions of the gospel, as affirmed in the New Testament, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, and set forth in the Epitome of Faith and Doctrine; it is clear to us that it is destructive to the faith of the church, and inconsistent with the calling and dignity of the ministry, to decry, disclaim, preach or teach contrary to the revelations in said Book of Covenants, or to arraign them in such a way that the faith of the people of the church is weakened and they thereby distressed. We are further of the opinion, that the elders should confine their teaching to such doctrines and tenets, church articles and practices, a knowledge of which is necessary to obedience and salvation; and that in all questions upon which there is much controversy, and upon which the church has not clearly declared, and which are not unmistakably essential to salvation, the elders should refrain from teaching; or if called upon, in defense of the church, or when wisdom should dictate, they should so clearly discriminate in their teaching between their own views and opinions, and the affirmations and defined declarations of the church that they shall not be found antagonizing their own and others' views as a conflict in teaching upon the part of the church. We are further of the opinion, that the advancing of speculative theories upon abstruse questions, a belief, or disbelief in which cannot affect the salvation of the hearers is a reprehensible practice; and should not be indulged in by the elders; especially should this not be done in those branches where personal antagonisms must inevitably arise, to the hindering of the work of grace; and should be reserved for the schools of inquiry among the elders themselves. We are further of the opinion, that until such time as vexed questions now pending are definitely settled by the competent quorums of the church the discussion of them should be avoided in all places where the elders labor, in the world and in the branches, and should only be had in solemn conclave when necessary to examine them for settlement, under proper rules of restraint. J. SMITH,W. W. BLAIR,Presidency" Mike SandersBook of Mormon BelieverIndependence, MO Edited January 8, 2015 by Michael Sanders
Cinnamon Bear Head Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Look, I can't turn on and off belief. I hope and I apply the precepts in my life. I pray and study. I am open, begging for god to show himself. I have faith. I am disappointed that coming to Christ with a broken heart and a contrite spirit isn't good enough to be in "good standing". What's the point of the gospel? The path to perfection and salvation. Am I supposed to get excited about a Nephite or the better way. Holy crap, my faith isn't in Noah, or Adam, or Nephi, or Joseph Smith. It is in Christ. Where is Bukowski when I need him. 1
Boanerges Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 There's always room for them at church if they really want to be there, but perhaps not in the temple. Is there a recommend question my ward and stake have failed to ask me over the past 30 odd years? I don't recall being asked, or asking anyone when I was in the position to do so, if they believe the Book of Mormon to be true or the word of God or whatever to get a temple recommend. Maybe I'm missing something. That said, I think there may be more who don't fully believe the Book of Mormon as history or as coming forth as Joseph Smith said than you might think (or want to think). Most who would agree with Dehlin on this probably don't just blurt it out in Gospel Doctrine class. Just because one believes the Book of Mormon is not "true" (whatever than actually means) or did not come forth as described does not mean that one doesn't believe it is a good book that teaches sound Christian principles just like the Bible.
Michael Sanders Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 That said, I think there may be more who don't fully believe the Book of Mormon as history or as coming forth as Joseph Smith said than you might think (or want to think). Most who would agree with Dehlin on this probably don't just blurt it out in Gospel Doctrine class. Just because one believes the Book of Mormon is not "true" (whatever than actually means) or did not come forth as described does not mean that one doesn't believe it is a good book that teaches sound Christian principles just like the Bible.The problem with this is that if you don't believe that it came forth "as Joseph Smith said" or believe in its historicity then you have to believe that the whole thing is built upon lies. That several of Joseph's revelations are false as they support the story of Book of Mormon origins. The whole thing begins to unravel at that point - its incoherent. I have a whole library filled with "good books" that teach sound Christian principles but that is not what the Book of Mormon claims to be.Mike Sanders Book of Mormon BelieverIndependence, MO 1
rockpond Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Church discipline is administered under the auspices of stake leaders. As the Church expands and the administrative workload increases, additional stakes are created accordingly. That's the genius of the Lord's plan. I see no cause for inordinate alarm. I understand how church discipline is administered. But you missed my point... I'm suggesting that the ratio of people who lack the same literal/orthodox beliefs will increase. As that happens, dealing with it on a case by case basis becomes increasingly difficult for local lay leaders. I see them turning to the general authorities for more of a policy statement on how to deal with it (if that policy doesn't come from the GA's even before the question can be posed -- it's possible they are already considering it based on Dehlin's case).
Mars Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I understand how church discipline is administered. But you missed my point... I'm suggesting that the ratio of people who lack the same literal/orthodox beliefs will increase. As that happens, dealing with it on a case by case basis becomes increasingly difficult for local lay leaders. I see them turning to the general authorities for more of a policy statement on how to deal with it (if that policy doesn't come from the GA's even before the question can be posed -- it's possible they are already considering it based on Dehlin's case). Ehhh... Maybe.
HappyJackWagon Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 The problem with this is that if you don't believe that it came forth "as Joseph Smith said" or believe in its historicity then you have to believe that the whole thing is built upon lies.But the Book of Abraham didn't come forth as JS claimed and the church recognizes and offers multiple possibilities. Does that mean the BoA is built upon lies or simply built upon joseph's misunderstanding.
Recommended Posts