thesometimesaint Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) Thanks, that makes sense to me. For instance, sacrament can really mean any holy rite, but in the context of Mormonism it's the Lord's supper. But, I would say again that discipline isn't consistent enough to use that as a basis for determining doctrine. And there is no discipline for violating the word of wisdom or for not paying tithing (at least no disfellowshiping or excommunication). But would you argue that there is no doctrine regarding the WoW or paying tithing? A more fair statement is we don't put a member through a Church disciplinary counsil for simply violating the WoW or for tithing issues. We can and do limit Temple attendance if either is an issue. Moreover we can and hold a Church disciplinary counsil if a member publicly teaches a contrary doctrine, after correction by Church leaders. The doctrine of the Church is we pay 10% of our increase. We leave the decision of what that 10% of increase is to the individual members. Edited April 17, 2015 by thesometimesaint
CCRW Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 A more fair statement is we don't put a member through a Church disciplinary counsil for simply violating the WoW or for tithing issues. We can and do limit Temple attendance if either is an issue. Moreover we can and hold a Church disciplinary counsil if a member publicly teaches a contrary doctrine, after correction by Church leaders. The doctrine of the Church is we pay 10% of our increase. We leave the decision of what that 10% of increase is to the individual members. I assume its true that a member is NOT in good standing if they do not have a TR ... or put another way one can not get a TR unless they are in "good standing". I suppose not being in good standing is a form of punishment.
Gray Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 A more fair statement is we don't put a member through a Church disciplinary counsil for simply violating the WoW or for tithing issues. We can and do limit Temple attendance if either is an issue. Moreover we can and hold a Church disciplinary counsil if a member publicly teaches a contrary doctrine, after correction by Church leaders. The doctrine of the Church is we pay 10% of our increase. We leave the decision of what that 10% of increase is to the individual members. I guess it depends on if you consider lack of a recommend discipline. It's not formal discipline. What if you reject BOM historicity? Technically that shouldn't be an offense that results in discipline or even temple recommend removal, but your results may vary. BOM historicity is probably doctrine, though.
thesometimesaint Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) I assume its true that a member is NOT in good standing if they do not have a TR ... or put another way one can not get a TR unless they are in "good standing". I suppose not being in good standing is a form of punishment. That's a non sequitur. To have a TR simply means you truthfully and accurately answered the TR questions. Not having a TR simply means you don't have one. Edited April 17, 2015 by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 I guess it depends on if you consider lack of a recommend discipline. It's not formal discipline. What if you reject BOM historicity? Technically that shouldn't be an offense that results in discipline or even temple recommend removal, but your results may vary. BOM historicity is probably doctrine, though. There is no TR question concerning the historicity of the BoM. We accept Joseph Smith as the prophet and all prophets after him. In essence if believing the BoM to be a fraud by JS then getting and holding a TR would be problematic, let alone publicly teaching against the BoM after counsel by Church leaders, IMNTBHO. Also the BoM itself claims there could be errors in it, but that has no barring on its historicity.
CCRW Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 That's a non sequitur. To have a TR simply means you truthfully and accurately answered the TR questions. Not having a TR simply means you don't have one. This was not true with several who were supporting OW and who were denied TR's. In JD's transcript of interactions with his SP that term was used by the SP ... as well dealing with supporting OW and SSM. Especially in the case of those supporting OW (or course JD had many other issues) that was a form of discipline don't you agree?
thesometimesaint Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) This was not true with several who were supporting OW and who were denied TR's. In JD's transcript of interactions with his SP that term was used by the SP ... as well dealing with supporting OW and SSM. Especially in the case of those supporting OW (or course JD had many other issues) that was a form of discipline don't you agree If some SP did that then they we're wrong. The policy of the Church is that you can support OW and/or SSM and still be a faithful member. What no one is entitled to do is to publicly deny the Truth Claims of the Church, and remain a member. IE; JD publicly denied the Truth Claims of the Church.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dehlin In February 2015, a disciplinary council of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) was held, with Dehlin being excommunicated from the church. A letter sent to Dehlin by church authorities cited instances in which Delhin publicly renounced his belief in core Mormon doctrine, such as stating that the Book of Mormon was a fraud, that the LDS Church was not the true church and that it did not receive authority from God.[10] In a public statement the church also noted Dehlin's rejection of the divinity of Jesus Christ as a factor in his excommunication.[11] Edited April 17, 2015 by thesometimesaint
Gray Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) There is no TR question concerning the historicity of the BoM. We accept Joseph Smith as the prophet and all prophets after him. In essence if believing the BoM to be a fraud by JS then getting and holding a TR would be problematic, let alone publicly teaching against the BoM after counsel by Church leaders, IMNTBHO. Also the BoM itself claims there could be errors in it, but that has no barring on its historicity. I didn't say anything about fraud, I was talking about lack of historicity, which is of course an issue across all ancient scripture. I can personally vouch that it is possible to get a TR and not hold that any particular standard work is historically accurate (and be open about that). Edited April 17, 2015 by Gray 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 I didn't say anything about fraud, I was talking about lack of historicity, which is of course an issue across all ancient scripture. I can personally vouch that it is possible to get a TR and not hold that any particular standard work is historically accurate (and be open about that). It's a mixed bag. Is it possible to hold a TR and believe that Jesus the Christ never actually existed or that the Nephites never existed? I would find such views problematic. It is possible to believe that the story of Job shouldn't be taken too literally, or that Nephite lands were in what was to become upstate New York and still retain a TR? Sure. Would I teach such in Sunday School as doctrine? No.
HappyJackWagon Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 I didn't say anything about fraud, I was talking about lack of historicity, which is of course an issue across all ancient scripture. I can personally vouch that it is possible to get a TR and not hold that any particular standard work is historically accurate (and be open about that). Me too. I can vouch for the same. This also goes for historicity of the restoration; First vision, angelic visitations etc. My SP and Bp are comfortable with someone having a hope that those things are true, either partially or in full.
Recommended Posts