LDS Freedom Forum

MercynGrace wrote:Joseph Smith Jr.

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." (History of the Church 5:340)

=)) oh the thick irony there.

No. You didn't go there, Mahonri! Tell me you didn't go there...!

@ MnG

I'm glad we can agree that correction needs to take place when doctrinal errors are taught.

Bottom line is that the sister who wrote the blog post did not do the investigator any favors. Ceding doctrinal ground in order to be more popular is what happened to apostate Christianity. We don't need to apologize for the doctrines of the restoration, or modify them in order to make them more palatable to potential investigators. We need to encourage them to develop their own testimonies of correct teachings.

The gap between the church and the world will continue to widen. Those that try to straddle the gap and keep a foot in both the church and babylon will end up falling.

PatriotSaint,
Consider these words of Elder Jeffrey R. Holland:

... If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That's what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody's liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. ...

I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum."

This is the point I am trying to make.

There is a big difference between kicking someone out of the church (as the portion you underlined suggests) and baptizing someone into the church. Sure we're not going to kick anyone out over a shaky testimony, but shouldn't we be careful to ensure a candidate is ready for baptism?

I'm not saying people shouldn't be loved, supported, or welcomed among us that have doubts about any gospel teaching. What I am saying is that the problem of members going inactive in the church is exacerbated by those that are willing to baptize people at any cost, no matter their preparation. People who are entering the church should be absolutely clear about what the church considers doctrine. To encourage them to join under any other pretext is disingenuous and harmful to their spiritual wellbeing.

Baptism is the beginning of a long road and symbolizes coming unto Christ for forgiveness of sins and covenanting to be His disciple. We allow people to do that all the time without regard for their feelings about the historicity of the BOM. People are allowed entrance into the temple without being asked about their belief in Zelph or the location of the city Bountiful. In fact, other than the first three questions which ask about testimony in the Godhead, the atonement, and the restored gospel, all the TR questions concern BEHAVIOR not BELIEF.

Consider the words of Elder Neal A. Maxwell (how I miss this wonderful man):
There is a real risk that members of the Church—particularly the young—may perceive the concept of the straight and narrow way too narrowly.

Variations of the concept of the straight and narrow path appear many times in the scriptures, but it is really a description of a clearly marked corridor to salvation and exaltation—a path of high adventure for the brave, not the intolerant; it is not an ecclesiastical “country club” situated on a narrow theological terrace.

The way is as wide as infinity in terms of its requirements of love and truth; it confines us only in marking those peril points along the path of life.

MercynGrace wrote:Baptism is the beginning of a long road and symbolizes coming unto Christ for forgiveness of sins and covenanting to be His disciple. We allow people to do that all the time without regard for their feelings about the historicity of the BOM. People are allowed entrance into the temple without being asked about their belief in Zelph or the location of the city Bountiful. In fact, other than the first three questions which ask about testimony in the Godhead, the atonement, and the restored gospel, all the TR questions concern BEHAVIOR not BELIEF.

Consider the words of Elder Neal A. Maxwell (how I miss this wonderful man):
There is a real risk that members of the Church—particularly the young—may perceive the concept of the straight and narrow way too narrowly.

Variations of the concept of the straight and narrow path appear many times in the scriptures, but it is really a description of a clearly marked corridor to salvation and exaltation—a path of high adventure for the brave, not the intolerant; it is not an ecclesiastical “country club” situated on a narrow theological terrace.

The way is as wide as infinity in terms of its requirements of love and truth; it confines us only in marking those peril points along the path of life.

I miss Elder Maxwell also. I think that quote is a very eloquent way of summing up how I feel about this particular case as well. Thanks for sharing that quote.

Reminds me of my friend Hyrum Andrus; "We ourselves choose to be knowledgeable active church members, or Kiwanis club types, socially active members, gospel knowledge not necessary!"

Bob

Mahonri wrote:This is NOT about condemning other, and I am really surprised that it is being seen as such by some.

It is about warning about an ever increasing view among members of the Church. It is extremely prevalent amongst BYU professors. Famous LDS apologist authors among others.

We need to be aware of such so as not to fall into the trap and to do our duty to testify of truth.

Ditto :ymapplause: *HIGH 5*

What bugs me is this idea of the Book of Mormon as some sort of inspired fiction...I love JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis - and their works were DEFINITELY inspired - yet they are not on the level of scripture...yet the LDS blog author - she demotes the Book Of Mormon to lower levels of value.

Love, Love, Love....that is what is required. Love others as you love yourself, and your Lord. what is truly in your heart, blaming others for "condemnation" or loving others to help them on their way to the Lord? Ours is not a collective path...

waking wrote:Love, Love, Love....that is what is required. Love others as you love yourself, and your Lord. what is truly in your heart, blaming others for "condemnation" or loving others to help them on their way to the Lord? Ours is not a collective path...

What is your definition of love? To support others in their sins? That is hate. The author of the blog posted in the initial post is not love. Christ

whipping the money changers; that was love.

I would suggest reading the chapter in the Discourses of Brigham Young on unity before you stick to your "collective path" statement.

HeirofNumenor wrote:What bugs me is this idea of the Book of Mormon as some sort of inspired fiction...I love JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis - and their works were DEFINITELY inspired - yet they are not on the level of scripture...yet the LDS blog author - she demotes the Book Of Mormon to lower levels of value.

yea...I've been scratching my head about this today. So that Moroni character that visited Joseph, taught him, and delivered the plates up to him--he's just fictional? And the restoration of scattered Israel, particularly the tribe of Manessah, Lehi's descendants? That purpose is fictional, too, because....Lehi really wasn't led out of Jerusalem to another continent? It's just inspired fiction? I don't get it.

Yes, include this woman as an investigator. She can sit next to me, too. Invite her to read the BoM, again. Does she wish to gain a testimony of it's validity?

President Gordon B. Hinckley: “I feel deeply that far too few of our converts have read the Book of Mormon. I feel that far too few have any understanding of the history of the Church. … Those we teach need the Spirit and the conversion power of that great and sacred volume [the Book of Mormon].”

There is no sacred work that give me more immediate access to the Spirit of God than the Book of Mormon. It's not just fiction. It's a true account. This is something our mission president emphasizes with the missionaries--to teach the Joseph Smith account NOT the Joseph Smith story.

patriotsaint wrote:The mission of the church is to support the Lord in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. We don't need a feeling of inclusiveness in the church based on incorrect doctrine to accomplish that,

I'd like you to point out the incorrect doctrine in her blog post.

what we need are the doctrines of the kingdom to be taught with power and authority so that testimonies can be established/strengthened.

Warm fuzzy feelings and platitudes about being inclusive don't help people stand before Christ. Watered down doctrine does not help people stand before Christ. Supporting one another in understanding true doctrine and obeying ALL the commandments is what will allow us to one day stand before Christ.

You either didn't read the writer's question, or you absolutely whiffed on comprehending the blogger's response. Either way, I think your whole approach to our church's sense of belonging is fundamentally intolerant of those who have varying degrees of testimony.

Maxwell also stated that church is not a museum of saints, but a hospital for the sick. That pansy was loaded with warm fuzzies.

Perhaps it takes balls to clear a bunch of money changers out of the temple, but it takes a spine to stand up to a mob that is eager to stone an adulteress. Good thing Jesus had both.

@ paperface

I already pointed out the error in her blog post. She told the investigator that it is common place and acceptable to doubt the authenticity of the BOM in the church. The BOM is the keystone of our religion. As such, don't you think a testimony of the spiritual/historical accuracy of that book is an important requirement for membership? Apparently the brethren do. After all, I'm not the one who came up with the questions for the baptismal interview.

It appears to me that you have whiffed on understanding what true inclusiveness and love is about. The investigator in question should absolutely be loved and encouraged in correct doctrine. Baptizing her under false pretenses isn't loving her or doing her any favors. Teaching her false doctrine regarding the BOM in order to make the doctrines of the restoration more appealing to her is not doing her any favors.

Nobody is advocating "stoning" this woman with a mob mentality, so I don't know why you are being so dramatic. What is being advocated is teaching her correct doctrine and helping her to gain a testimony that will lead her to make the covenant of baptism. Not baptizing her and then hoping she can gain a testimony later.

Not baptizing her and then hoping she can gain a testimony later.

Isn't that what we do with 8 year olds?

MercynGrace wrote:

Not baptizing her and then hoping she can gain a testimony later.

Isn't that what we do with 8 year olds?

We shouldn't if we are. They have a baptismal interview as well. It's the parents responsibility to prepare them.

PatriotSaint,
We baptize children based on their desire to follow Christ and keep His commandments. Most have no idea about the law of consecration, the law of chastity, polygamy or a host of other doctrines.

They are not asked about BOM historicity, I assure you.
MnG

A baptismal interview includes none of the doctrines you listed, so I don't know why you even mention them.

In my baptismal interview the Bishop asked me if I had a testimony of the BOM (and yes I was 8). Your mileage may vary

MercynGrace wrote:

Not baptizing her and then hoping she can gain a testimony later.

Isn't that what we do with 8 year olds?

Absolutely not! An 8 yr old raised in the church should have a testimony. Any investigator who has received the lessons from the missionaries should have a testimony.

patriotsaint wrote:A baptismal interview includes none of the doctrines you listed, so I don't know why you even mention them.

In my baptismal interview the Bishop asked me if I had a testimony of the BOM (and yes I was 8). Your mileage may vary

Having a testimony of the BOM and having a testimony of the books historicity may be two different issues depending on the individual answering the question.

mes5464 wrote:

MercynGrace wrote:

Not baptizing her and then hoping she can gain a testimony later.

Isn't that what we do with 8 year olds?

Absolutely not! An 8 yr old raised in the church should have a testimony. Any investigator who has received the lessons from the missionaries should have a testimony.

And yet will a testimony of the Bof M, or the church, or the gospel save us or remove the condemnation from us? No, it won't. Something more is required. At the very least the baptism by fire.....actually receiving the Holy Ghost, instead of just being told to in our confirmation. Actually having our baptism take effect by being cleasned from our sins by fire and the Holy Ghost.
I found an interesting quote from Joseph Smith:
You might as well baptize a bag of sand as a man, if not done in view of the remission of sins and getting the Holy Ghost. Baptism by water is but half a baptism, and is good for nothing without the other half-that is baptism of the Holy Ghost.(TPJS, Joseph F. Smith pg. 314)

mes5464 wrote:

MercynGrace wrote:

Not baptizing her and then hoping she can gain a testimony later.

Isn't that what we do with 8 year olds?

Absolutely not! An 8 yr old raised in the church should have a testimony. Any investigator who has received the lessons from the missionaries should have a testimony.

A testimony of Christ, the gospel, the restoration, yes. But again, I refer you to the temple recommend questions - there is no question about the historicity of the BOM which is the topic specifically addressed by the OP.

MercynGrace wrote:

patriotsaint wrote:A baptismal interview includes none of the doctrines you listed, so I don't know why you even mention them.

In my baptismal interview the Bishop asked me if I had a testimony of the BOM (and yes I was 8). Your mileage may vary

Having a testimony of the BOM and having a testimony of the books historicity may be two different issues depending on the individual answering the question.

LOL, that's a comical argument. The BOM is either what Joseph said it is, or it is not. I don't believe the Spirit makes the distinctions you are making. The book is true, or it's false.......the whole book.....the whole account.

MercynGrace wrote: A testimony of Christ, the gospel, the restoration, yes. But again, I refer you to the temple recommend questions - there is no question about the historicity of the BOM which is the topic specifically addressed by the OP.

You're far too hung up of the word "historicity". The book isn't broken out into sections labeled historical, spiritual, political, familial etc. It's either true or it is not. One has a testimony of its truthfulness or one does not.