LDS Freedom Forum

PS,
In case you missed this on the first page of the thread, I'll repost more of Elder Holland's words:

... 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."

MercynGrace wrote:I don't think it hurts the church because I believe no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing.

This attitude either helps or hurts the Church. There's no middle ground. Judging by your statement, you think this attitude HELPS the Church. We disagree.

If people with imperfect and incomplete testimonies could damage the church, 19 year old missionaries would have buried the institution a long time ago.

MercynGrace wrote:PS,
In case you missed this on the first page of the thread, I'll repost more of Elder Holland's words:

... 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."

I didn't miss it. I just feel you have taken it out of context and misapplied it as I explained earlier. I'll just stick with what he has had to say most recently about the origins of the book of mormon as given over the pulpit in GC. There can be no argument about the doctrine taught or his intentions there. So to make my position crystal clear for you, I believe that If an investigator does not have a testimony of the BOM, they should not be a candidate for baptism.

Do I think the question of testimony should be so specific as to ascertain the investigators feelings regarding the historical, spiritual, political, familial, societal etc messages of the book of mormon? No, but doctrines of the restoration should not be set aside, and investigators should not be "rubber stamped" in their baptismal interviews by well-meaning, although misguided, interviewers.

I hope that settles any questions you had about my position.

MercynGrace wrote:If people with imperfect and incomplete testimonies could damage the church, 19 year old missionaries would have buried the institution a long time ago.

It's not the imperfect testimonies, but the attitudes shown by established members who should know better that hurt the church. Those who want to apologize for the doctrines of the restoration hurt the church. Those who are fine with accepting watered down doctrine in order to appeal to a wider audience hurt the church. Those who want to rubber stamp baptismal candidates that haven't really been given a spiritual witness, but have been converted through an intellectual process that cherry-picks what they will or won't believe hurt the church.

patriotsaint wrote: 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."

I didn't miss it. I just feel you have taken it out of context and misapplied it as I explained earlier.

I missed this particular accusation. What context do you believe is absent? To me it seems clear that Elder Holland is saying he does not find people unacceptable as LDS if they do not have the same burning conviction of the BOMs origins that he has.

You've quoted his testimony of the BOM and as wonderful as that is, it doesn't address the question of what others are allowed to believe and still be acceptable within the church. The quote I provided from Elder Holland's PBS interview addresses the issue specifically.

I pointed out (or maybe just thought I had) that Elder Holland isn't discussing baptismal candidates, but those that are already members of the church that happen to falter in their testimonies. Show me one quote or one instance when the brethren have said that an individual should not have a testimony of the divine authenticity of the BOM in order to be baptized. You can't, because it doesn't exist. The BOM is the keystone of our religion and a testimony of it is absolutely essential to membership. Why else would the investigators testimony of the BOM be discussed in their baptismal interview?


I should also point out that perhaps we are asking the wrong question here. Instead of asking if it's ok for someone to be baptized without a testimony of the BOM, we should ask why on earth would they want to be baptized without a testimony of the BOM?

If you don't have a testimony of the BOM, you can't have a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet.
If you don't believe Joseph is a prophet, why would you believe the priesthood was restored through him by angelic ministrations?
If you don't believe the priesthood was restored through Joseph, why be baptized into the Church?

It seems we're arguing something here akin to "Can God make something too heavy for him to lift"? If an investigator doesn't have a testimony of the BOM, why on earth would they want to be baptized?

PS,
Did the FP and Q12 approve of the Preach My Gospel manual which lists the following (and only the following) as the baptismal interview questions?

1. Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?
2. Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?
3. What does it mean to you to repent? Do you feel that you have repented of your past transgressions?
4. Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have you ever participated in an abortion? a homosexual relationship?
5. You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes living gospel standards. What do you understand of the following standards? Are you willing to obey them?
a. The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a legal marriage between a man and a woman.
b. The law of tithing.
c. The Word of Wisdom.
d. The Sabbath day, including partaking of the sacrament weekly and rendering service to fellow members.
6. When you are baptized, you covenant with God that you are willing to take upon yourself the name of Christ and keep His commandments throughout your life. Are you ready to make this covenant and strive to be faithful to it?

The same manual lists the following as qualifications for baptism:

Doctrine and Covenants 20:37:
• Humble themselves before God.
• Desire to be baptized.
• Come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits.
• Repent of all their sins.
• Be willing to take upon them the name of Christ.
• Have a determination to serve Christ to the end.
• Manifest by their works that they have received the Spirit of Christ unto a remission of their sins.
First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve:
• Make sufficient changes in their lives to qualify as commanded in Doctrine and
Covenants 20:37.
• Develop faith in Christ.
• Repent of transgressions.
• Live the principles of moral worthiness.
• Live the Word of Wisdom.
• Commit to pay tithing.
• Receive all the missionary lessons [lessons 1–4 on the Teaching Record and associated
commitments].
• Meet the bishop or branch president.
• Attend several sacrament meetings.
(“Statement on Missionary Work,” First Presidency letter, 11 Dec. 2002)

Notice that neither of these lists - direct cut and pastes from lds.org even mention the Book of Mormon.

Maybe your issue isn't with me. Maybe it's with the correlation dept.

See my edited post above. You can't answer question 2 without a testimony of the BOM. It's interesting that one of the first things ever taught by a missionary is the book of mormon and the investigators are challenged to pray to find out if it is true. Why is that? Because everything else builds on that.

thanks for posting the interview questions, mercyn. I was wondering about that.

patriotsaint wrote:See my edited post above. You can't answer question 2 without a testimony of the BOM

You and I might feel that way but the investigator in the OP clearly doesn't. She believes Joseph Smith had visions. I don't need to reconcile her view to believe that she can reconcile it to her satisfaction.

MercynGrace wrote:

patriotsaint wrote:See my edited post above. You can't answer question 2 without a testimony of the BOM

You and I might feel that way but the investigator in the OP clearly doesn't. She believes Joseph Smith had visions. I don't need to reconcile her view to believe that she can reconcile it to her satisfaction.

Here's where we fundamentally disagree then. I don't think the question should be whether or not the investigator has a testimony founded on reconciled doctrine, but whether or not the investigator has a testimony founded on true doctrine. Just my opinion.

If our focus as members was on testifying of truth instead of apologizing or making excuses for it, maybe the investigator would have already had her concerns resolved.

What on earth is an imperfect testimony? Look up the word. Testimony means something that you witness. Either you can or cannot give testimony. If you give an imperfect testimony in court it is called contempt. Now if you are talking about incomplete, that is different, but say so. Did the Holy Ghost witness to you that JS was a prophet and/or the BoM was true. They are inseparable, and he will tell you so at judgement day. If you don't believe the BoM to have come forwards as JS said, you don't have a testimony of the restored gospel, and therefore should not be baptized until you have said testimony. If it is not coming, repent. The biggest barrier of testimony is sin. I can bear testimony of that.

Patriot Saint,
What do you disagree with? That I don't need to reconcile another person's beliefs or that she should be able to accept the gospel with some aspects of her testimony pending and/or imperfect?

Speedracer,
The word "perfect" also means "complete" or "whole" thus imperfect means the opposite of those synonyms. Notice that I used both words at different times during the discussion.

edit: Gotta run guys - we have youth night tonight and I need to get there early so I can turn in my temple recommend and ask to be excommunicated. After all, Mahonri declared me an enemy of Christ...

MercynGrace wrote:Patriot Saint,
What do you disagree with? That I don't need to reconcile another person's beliefs or that she should be able to accept the gospel with some aspects of her testimony pending and/or imperfect?

I'll repeat what I've said previously. You can't have a testimony of the restored gospel without knowing Joseph is a prophet. You can't know Joseph is a prophet without knowing the BOM is true. Therefore, I believe that a testimony of the divine authenticity of the BOM is necessary for one seeking baptism into the church.

I'm at work now, but there are various quotes where prophets have shown a testimony of these things to be linked/related.

patriotsaint wrote:I already pointed out the error in her blog post.

She indicated a varying level of testimony regarding the Book of Mormon amongst those who are members. Some believe, some doubt. That's not a falsehood. It's also not incorrect doctrine. It's a descriptive fact about our culture. It is common place, and it is acceptable.

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?

No, I don't. I think it is important to the individual's salvation, but not to their membership in the Mormon church. The church is there to help the individual gain a testimony. However, not all members are required to have a testimony to be a member. The blogger told the investigator the truth.

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.

If you can point out where the blogger told her to go ahead and get baptized, you'll have a point. If you can't, then you don't have a leg to stand on. You're accusing her falsely. I.e., bearing false witness. That's not true inclusiveness, nor is it Christlike love.

This blogger's post was the equivalent of "Visitors are welcome. Oh, and by the way, we're human just like you." If you missed that, then you weren't reading for comprehension.

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.

Again, I'd like you to point out specifically where (paragraph and line) she utilized false doctrine.

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 everyone arrives to that decision the same way. With maturity in the Gospel comes an understanding that some people find their way into our culture because they admire us. That being the case here, the writer asked if there was a place among us for her and her child. The blogger did the right thing in essentially saying, "Of course there is." In other words, she did what Christ would do.

Would Christ whitewash our current membership by indicating that all believe and have strong testimonies of the Book of Mormon? No. That would be a falsehood. Would he say that this is the requirement for her to "belong"? No, he wouldn't. He would welcome her. If she told him to his face that she thought the Book of Mormon was bunk but that she still wanted to come, would he turn her away? No. The sign on the front of every ward house remains unchanged. It is the will of Christ.

Allowing her into the fold as an unofficial member will give her a chance to build relationships with Mormons. She will also have the opportunity to test such commandments as the Word of Wisdom, paying tithing, fast offering, doing genealogy, attending all three meetings of the block, watching general conference, sending her child to primary, AND performing experiments upon Mormon scripture a la the admonition of Alma in Alma 32. If you don't see those opportunities and possibilities, then it's possible that you're not really interested in welcoming everyone into the church.

1 Corinthians 12:

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

@ paperface

/fail

There is too much wrong with your post to even begin going through it now. Maybe if I'm bored and want to waste a 1/2 hour of my life I'll address your response when I get home.

The problem is that it addresses the actual blog post. Unlike the entirety of your response on this thread.

Btw, Mercy N Grace, thanks be to God that there are people like you in the church.

I think that to answer baptismal interview question #2 you need at least a starting faith in the Church, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon for what they themselves claim to be. If you have faith in them as something other than they claim to be then it isn't time for you to start or proceed further down the ordinance path. You don't build your house of faith without first finishing the foundation.

As to what Holland said, I think what other have said already needs to be taken to heart: He's not advising them to be baptized or proceed down the ordinance path; most likely has was talking to already baptized members. Look at it this way: having historical doubts may be a good reason to not get baptized but it's not an excommunicatable offense. Holland is saying: yeah there's a crack in your foundation, but don't abandon it! To whatever extent it's blessing you, keep on nurturing it and getting the stability from it. And repair it! This is definitely true. It's the same for this tentative person.

I really strongly believe that coming into the church without the right start = condemnation, not blessings. I would advise tentative to keep studying, keep coming, and yes she can sit next to us. But wait on baptism.

I once knew someone who had completely redefined the gospel, and half of the english Language, so that he could profess belief while having actually nothing in common with me. Such people, though I wouldn't want to be rude to, could definitely use a good jarring from the lord, and yes, I wouldn't want them teaching sunday school. The redefinition they did was really not OK and therefore the gospel's effects on him were thereby warped.

paper face wrote:The problem is that it addresses the actual blog post. Unlike the entirety of your response on this thread.

Hardly. I stated early in this thread that anyone has a place in the Church, first as an investigator and then as a member.....but that those approaching baptism should have a clear understanding of the restoration. Christ would not simply baptize someone so they could "belong" as you seem to imply. Of course visitors are welcome and I have never stated anything to the contrary. The fact that you would even assert that shows that you have either not read this thread, or have trouble with comprehension.

Your pointless rebuttal didn't address the original topic at all. The original topic was whether or not the attitude displayed by the blogger serves to lessen the condemnation the church is under for neglecting the BOM or not (as stated in the D&C).

I am in the camp that this attitude doesn't lessen the condemnation we are under. You and MnG however, are certainly entitled to your opinions.

braingrunt wrote:I think that to answer baptismal interview question #2 you need at least a starting faith in the Church, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon for what they themselves claim to be. If you have faith in them as something other than they claim to be then it isn't time for you to start or proceed further down the ordinance path. You don't build your house of faith without first finishing the foundation.

As to what Holland said, I think what other have said already needs to be taken to heart: He's not advising them to be baptized or proceed down the ordinance path; most likely has was talking to already baptized members. Look at it this way: having historical doubts may be a good reason to not get baptized but it's not an excommunicatable offense. Holland is saying: yeah there's a crack in your foundation, but don't abandon it! To whatever extent it's blessing you, keep on nurturing it and getting the stability from it. And repair it! This is definitely true. It's the same for this tentative person.

I really strongly believe that coming into the church without the right start = condemnation, not blessings. I would advise tentative to keep studying, keep coming, and yes she can sit next to us. But wait on baptism.

I once knew someone who had completely redefined the gospel, and half of the english Language, so that he could profess belief while having actually nothing in common with me. Such people, though I wouldn't want to be rude to, could definitely use a good jarring from the lord, and yes, I wouldn't want them teaching sunday school. Their life path was really not OK.

+1

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."

I think it's important to remember that the BOM, like the Bible, is a vehicle to bring men to CHRIST. Ultimately, He alone offers salvation. No book. No prophet. No artifact.

patriotsaint wrote:Christ would not simply baptize someone so they could "belong" as you seem to imply.

Again, the blogger never recommended baptism. How many times does it have to be stated? Your entire stance on this point is irrelevant because she never advised or even suggested that the investigator to go ahead with baptism.

I am in the camp that this attitude doesn't lessen the condemnation we are under.

Yeah. First it's false doctrine, and now it's an attitude. F-minus.

The blogger faithfully utilized a verse from Mosiah in her response to the investigator, thus bearing testimony of what she views as the truthfulness of the book in question. Perhaps the execution was just too subtle for your "camp" to comprehend. But in truth, such inclusiveness as expressed by the blogger leads the culturally converted to have more opportunities to hear testimonies, see good examples, engage scripture, and thereby gain the testimony necessary to enter the waters of Baptism all the time. If you're a lifer and you've never seen that, then you haven't been watching.

Do you want to avoid condemnation? Start looking towards the heart. Because that is what Christ sees.