If anyone would be able to claim that they are going to die when it is God’s will, and further would be guaranteed a quick trip to the Celestial Kingdom, it would be the current prophet.
Did Jesus have bodyguards?
Similairly, the apostles all have security details when they travel as well and I wonder why.
I just don’t accept your fast-and-loose definition of “doctrine.” Neither does the Church: http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=970af549db852110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD
You’re asking me to accept that anything ever taught by anyone in any church meeting is a doctrine of the Church. So if my Priesthood meeting instructor mentions in passing that autumn is the prettiest time of year, or that hamburgers taste better than hotdogs, or that Nike makes the best shoes, then all of these become Church doctrines. That’s just ridiculous on its face.
So if a local authority tells my son that he has to wear a white shirt to pass the sacrament, I can tell my son to e an free to ignore the leader…it’s not doctrinal.
All I’m saying is that with this specific teaching, it is something that is widely taught in our church all over the world. I am also saying that there is some scriptural basis for this teaching. There have even been modern day prophets and apostles that have taught this teaching and related teachings(including Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Bruce McConkie, and Marion Romney). Given that, a reasonable person would believe that it is a doctrine our church believes and teaches.
If it was false doctrine, the powers that be would make a direct effort to correct this apostate teaching. However, I am unaware of any such effort.
Are you aware of any teaching or corrective action taken to dispell what you believe is false doctrine regarding this topic? Are you aware of any retractions made regarding the statements of BRM or any of the others I mentioned that have taught this? Anyone being censured or released from their calling? How about a prophet being struck down because by teaching this, he lead the church astray?
I believe what he said was that “our church teaches it as doctrine”, not necessarily that is in fact doctrine. This happens all the time in the Church. All aboriginal people in the Americas being descended from Lehi is a good example of such.
You can tell your son that it’s not doctrinal to wear a white shirt, but that it is doctrinal to follow the instructions of his bishop—the presiding Aaronic Priesthood officer in his ward—in administering an ordinance of the Aaronic Priesthood. You can also tell him it’s in the discretion of the bishop to set a dress standard for passing the sacrament.
I can only speak for myself, but I can’t ever recall hearing any teaching that says the Prophet is unconditionally guaranteed exaltation from the moment he becomes President of the Church. I’ve never been taught that the ordination and setting apart of the Church President automatically coincides with that President being sealed to Eternal Life. I would be a lot easier to convince on this point if you could offer me a single authoritative reference of the kind I asked for.
Are you unaware of D&C 3:4-9 telling Joseph Smith that he was susceptible to falling?
Are you unaware of D&C 43:4, telling the Elders of the Church in February of 1831, more than 10 months after Joseph Smith became the leader of the newly organized Church, that the power to receive commandments and revelations could be taken from Joseph Smith, and that Joseph would have no power except to appoint his successor?
Are you aware that D&C 132:49, the revelation that Joseph Smith was sealed to exaltation, was not recorded until July 1843, more than 13 years after Joseph became the head of the Church?
All these appear to me to stand against the proposition that the moment a man becomes President of the Church, he has automatic and unconditional exaltation.
I think there’s an important distinction between saying, “Some misinformed members of our Church wrongly teach it as doctrine” and saying, “Our Church teaches it as doctrine.”
“I think there’s an important distinction between saying, “Some misinformed members of our Church wrongly teach it as doctrine†and saying, “Our Church teaches it as doctrine.—
I guess that is determined by whether or not the so called ‘misinformed members’ are in the majority or not…
I don’t see why. If a majority of members of the Church have not learned that some common belief is not an official Church teaching, that doesn’t transform the belief into a doctrine.
As to whether there is actually divine protection for missionaries, and for the President of the Church, I’m not saying there isn’t such a thing. Obviously, the scriptures and the history of the Church are replete with examples of the Lord intervening in extraordinary ways for the protection of his servants. But I am saying there’s no justification for tempting the Lord by cavalierly relying on that power without taking normal and reasonable measures for our own safety.
Belief in God’s power doesn’t call for recklessness. It doesn’t call for tempting the Lord, as has already been stated above in comments 12, 42 and 44.
There’s also scriptural support for the idea that mountains can be miraculously moved. Now, we could ask why Brigham Young led the members of the Church to the valley of the Great Salt Lake by wagon and handcart, enduring untold hardships. If anyone’s entitled to a miracle, isn’t the Prophet? Why take the Saints to the valley, rather than just rely on the power to move mountains and bring the valley to the Saints? The answer to this, I think, is the same as the answer to rick’s question—because God expects us to do things for ourselves when we can.
re: your second part to 56,
Those are all fine and dandy. What I am not aware of is any action being taken in the church in these latter days regarding this “False doctrine” of having the president of the church sealed up to eternal life. That’s what I was asking for. Got anything on that?
re: your first question in 56:
Joseph Smith Jr. Teaches to this effect. It can be found in “Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith”. Therein he talks about having one’s calling and election made sure. He outlines the requirements for this. In fact, he basically stated that having this assurance equates with having the sealing power granted to Paul. This same sealing power we believe that the standing prophet has. Most, if not all of the conditions he mentions fit the person who is called as prophet in our church. Any reasonable person can make the connection.
In support of this, and fleshing it out in more detail is Bruce McConkie’s explanation in his doctrinal new testament commentary. You may feel safe dismissing anything Bruce has said about anything, but I don’t believe he was ever reprimanded or asked to retract what he said about having one’s calling and election made sure. That being the case, I believe we can call that authoritative. He also teaches this in his book The Promised Messiah.
But I’m guessing those probably aren’t good enough for you.
re: 59
If you accept any of the authoritative sources I mentioned above, then this really doesn’t matter. But let’s say you don’t and address this question.
What you fail to see is what is actually happening and being taught in the church vs. what should be taught. For the sake of arguement, lets say you are correct and that this is a false doctrine being taught in our church.
That being the case, it is being taught and spread unchecked. Regardless of how official or not it is, it is something that the vast majority of the church believes. It is something that no corrective measures have been taken against. In fact, it may be the case that every single person in the church, except for you believes it, even though it’s false.
I would submit that if you could poll the entire active membership of the church and ask “if the prophet died, would he be guaranteed a spot in the Celestial Kingdom?”, greater than 90% would agree and among those, many would be general authorities.
Well, that being the case, It is something the church teaches as doctrine. It is something it’s members believe as doctrine. It’s something that a non-member, visiting and learning for the first time would be taught or told at some point.
This makes it something we teach. Any reasonable person can see that.
This is vastly different than say… the doctrine of Transubstantiation. There is no way any slightly informed person could ever confuse that doctrine with something the LDS church believes or teaches. It has no part of our church doctrine or teachings. You’d never hear it.
But that’s not the case with the question regarding the prophet. We teach it, we believe it… it’s part of us until an authoritative source comes forward and sets the church straight.
And if you can’t see the connection… well, then you’re just not being reasonable. And if that’s the case, then I’ll just accept that as the type of person you are. If you can’t be reasonable, then there is no sense in conversing or debating anymore, is there?
such as the publication of the scriptures, or the giving of the revelations in them? You’re saying the scriptures must be wrong because you haven’t seen someone removed from his calling for expressing this opinion?
They’re good enough to show that Elder McConkie had a well-thought-out opinion on this issue, but obviously not enough to show that his opinion was transformed into an official church teaching.
I can’t comment much on what Joseph Smith said without being able to see his words. What I do see is that the Doctrine & Covenants clearly and unambiguously shows Joseph was susceptible to falling from his position, after he became the leader of the organized Church.
We have nothing to base that conclusion on, because you’ve given no evidence indicating what percentage of Church members believe it and what percentage don’t. It’s also irrelevant to the question of whether it is a doctrine.
That’s a mildly interesting piece of pure speculation. It does nothing at all to show the belief is true, and it does nothing at all to show that the belief is a doctrine of the Church.
Actually there are some reasonable people who appear to have had more responsible teachers than you have had, and have not been constantly exposed to this teaching in church meetings, where such opinions don’t belong. I’m one of them.
I can see the connection. I can also see that it’s faulty. You’re making unwarranted connections and conclusions, based on unjustified assumptions and sloppy definitions.
re: 62
You’re completely missing the point. and I’m done with pointless discussions.
Best of luck!
I’m sorry you have nothing left to say, but refusing to accept your wildly loose definition of what constitutes Church doctrine isn’t missing the point.
The point is that if the leaders of the church cared to, it’d be a simple issue to quash all of these speculations by members.
They choose not to.
I suppose they could do as you suggest: They could simply make up and declare an official Church position on every conceivable issue—regardless of whether the Lord has directed them to do so—and quash any need for members to exercise their own agency. What an awful thing that would be!
“What an awful thing that would be!”
Correct.
I couldn’t imagine being a member of a church whose leadership tells them what food they can eat, or what they can wear, or where they can worship, or who can attend their ceremonies, or what days they may work, or what races can participate in their ceremonies, or whether or not they may have sex and what types of sex are okay.
That would be ghastly.
Then why are you demanding that they dictate even more? Pick a position.
No.
I want them to pick a position; and stick with it.
So a religion has to be all or none? Either they should tell you what to do about EVERYTHING or NOTHING. Hmmmm, interesting.
Maybe they could just teach correct principles and let the members govern themselves.
I wonder why it’s so hard for this church, at every level, to stick to that?
Or, maybe Prophets and Apostles should just say what the Spirit leads them to say, and ignore all the sniping whiners who think they’re in a better position to judge what the Lord’s Church should and shouldn’t do.
“sniping whiners”
You mean like members with minds?
What kind of message does it send to members when they are told,”Please don’t think about anything. Just wait for the leaders to tell you what you think.”?
That’s not what it is like though, Rick. We are expected to think for ourselves and we do. Can’t speak for everyone, but that is what I was always taught, what I teach my children and what I do.
I really wouldn’t know. You should probably ask someone who said that.
However, your comment does seem exceedingly ironic, since you are the one who’s insisting we’re all too stupid to sort out any Word of Wisdom or body modification issues for ourselves, and need to have every little detail sorted out for us by the Prophet.
JM re:#71. Indeed!
It would also be nice if church members would spend more time actually governing themselves rather than trying to govern everybody else. Then we wouldn’t see the contention that Rick speaks of. That is why I say the membership is to blame rather than the leadership.
Here is my take on it. If the Prophet has made a firm statement about something, then you can assume, as an active member, that you are responsible for respecting it. However, if no firm statement has been made, then use your brain to come up with a decision you truly believe to be consistent or compatable with the existing rules, keeping in mind that you will be accountable for your decision. After this process, if your conscience is truly clear, then proceed with confidence and mind your own business about what everybody else is doing. It’s not your responsibility.
Simple.
“sniping whiners”
You do have flare for the dramatic ltbugaf.
No. I mean sniping whiners. I have a little system for communication, which I try to stick to (though a tendency toward sarcasm sometimes intereferes with it): I say what I mean and mean what I say.
Thus, when I mean “members with minds” I say “members with minds” or some synonymous phrase. Likewise, when I mean “sniping whiners” I say “sniping whiners” or something that means the same thing.
It’s a simple system, really, and it seems to confuse almost no one but you.
Nermalcat I heartily agree with what you said in comment 77. As you said, it’s simple, not complicated or confusing.
Let me see if I can explain why I think this comment, made by JM in #53, is not true:
There are some concepts that are not Church doctrine which are patently false, and which are dangerous because they lead members of the Church away from following the Prophet or living the commandments. For example, if a person openly urges that we should disobey the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve by practicing plural marriage, that person is preaching an apostate doctrine—a doctrine that poses a genuine spiritual danger.
Then there are other concepts that are also not Church doctrines, but which don’t pose such a danger. One example is whether Jesus Christ was born on April 6. Some people, including Apostles, have believed that D&C 20:1 means Christ was born precisely 1,830 years before the organization of the Church. Others, including Apostles, have believed it doesn’t necessarily mean that. (I myself haven’t even bothered to choose a side on a matter so trivial, but some seem quite enthusiastic about it.) So we have some people who are clearly believing in a falsehood: Both sides can’t be right. But the belief poses no danger to members of the Church, or to anyone else. Therefore, there’s no need for “the powers that be” to put an end to it. However, those who talk about the idea in Church meetings ought to understand, and their hearers also ought to understand, that it’s not a doctrine of the Church.
I think the case is the same with those who may believe every President of the Church has, by the time he is set apart to that office, automatically assured of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. I personally disagree with that idea for the reasons I’ve given above. But I don’t think the idea is harming anyone or leading them to do spiritual harm. Thus, the Church’s leaders have no urgent need to stamp out such a belief. Just as with Christ’s birthday, though, we all should understand that it’s not a doctrine.
“…and mind your own business about what everybody else is doing. It’s not your responsibility.”
Unless of course you’ve been called to be a bishop or other higher calling. Then you’re in a catch-22.
Rick, you’re misapplying your criticism. The “minding your own business” that Nermalcat describes involves not compelling people to conform to a personal opinion on a nondoctrinal matter. Bishops are just as able as anyone else to do that.
On the other hand, in other areas, such as whether members are living in accordance with the requirements for exercising the Priesthood, attending the temple, and so forth, the bishop does have an obligation to involve himself in other people’s personal lives. However, he’s still not in a catch-22, because such matters are his business.
So I take it you’ve never had an over-zealous bishop over you?
I’ve spoken to members who have had all manner of arbitrary non-doctrinal nonsense enforced on them.
I see. You know bishops who forced people to believe as the bishops believed, on nondoctrinal matters. Did they disfellowship or excommunicate them for those beliefs?
But of course, that’s all a digression anyway. Even if a bishop is being over-zealous, how does that put him in a catch-22?
In my experience, every leader that I have ever been subject to in the church has had different ideas on what members should do. For example, some want all priesthood holders in white shirts at all church meetings, others don’t mention it. Some hate facial hair and make a point of commanding all returned missionaries to keep the face clean, others don’t care enough to say anything. Some enforce stricter dress standards at church activities than others.
The list is endless. They are not major points of difference and may not be eternally significant, but members are expected to follow the “opinions” of their leaders.
Yes, bishops have rather broad discretion over issues such as how to dress when administering the ordinances of the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on. They exercise that discretion according to local conditions and their own judgment, as well as following the Spirit. I fail to see how that puts a bishop in what rick describes as a “catch-22.”
Since there have been a lot of comments on this thread and a few others regarding bishops who ask their Priests and Deacons to dress in white shirts for administering the sacrament, I thought this quote from Elder Holland might be interesting (though perhaps off-topic).
(What’s odd to me is that in my recollection, he said, “in areas where it is culturally appropriate” as well as “whenever possible.” But I don’t see it in the Ensign. He may have decided to omit it from the printed version, or I may just be remembering wrong.)
Oops. Here’s the reference: Jeffrey R. Holland, “This Do in Remembrance of Me,” General Conference, October 1995.
Here’s the link: http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=16db6e9ce9b1c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Ltbugaf,
I am so dizzy trying to follow you.
Rick asks a question based on a commonly held belief by members of our church.
You counter by claiming that this certain belief is not official doctrine, regardless of the fact that it is something we, as lay members, teach and pass along to each other.
You give criteria for acceptance of this doctrine.
When provided with said crtiteria, you choose to ignore it saying that the source was discredited, ON A DIFFERENT MATTER, so you feel free to ignore all information from this source at your convenience.
So, we are then left with the following…
We have somthing being taught as doctrine in our church meetings. It is being taught by official teachers.
You are claiming that it is false doctrine.
When false doctrine is being taught, those who preside have a duty to correct it. This isn’t happening at any level.
You now take the position that some false doctrine really isn’t false doctrine, but rather something that we just don’t have all the information to come to a definite conclusion. So now you have changed your mind and placed the false doctrine in rick’s original question into this second catagory that doesn’t require any official or non-official action by anyone in the church, because it’s not really false doctrine, just something that really doesn’t warrant any consideration.
But yet, in 23 you decide to pick a fight to decide if this is doctrine or not. It was so important then, but now it’s not.
So, if that’s the case, then why decide to pick the fight to begin with? Why decided to be difficult? Why not engage in a friendly dialog about the original question posed? Why not offer some different interpretations on the source of rick’s information? Why not try to understand where he, and many others may be coming from? Why never try to show forth an increase in love lest we all esteem you to be our enemy? Your entire demeanor as evidenced by this thread is the answer you are looking for in #21.
The bishop is expected to mind his own business while at the same time must take responsibility for his flock. This is the no-win situation.
I don’t really know how commonly held it is. I’ve seen nothing to indicate how many people do or don’t believe it. No one has tried to teach it to me as a Church doctrine.
Correct
You’re more than a little careless in making this assertion with no real evidence, and especially in using the pronoun “we.” I don’t do that, and I hope you don’t either.
Namely, “an official Church publication at the very least.” Strictly speaking, that doesn’t necessarily establish something as a doctrine either. For the best definition, see the Church’s own statement on what constitutes official doctrine, for which I’ve already provided you the link at least twice. But if you provide at least one official Church publication that says it’s true, I’d certainly be interested to see it.
No, you have never provided what I asked for. Not one official Church publication, and certainly nothing meeting the criteria for doctrine as described in the official statement on doctrine. The most you’ve ever offered was an excerpt from a work of personal opinion by Bruce R. McConkie.
Quite obviously, I didn’t ignore it. I responded to it in comment 31, in which I indicated (1) that I disagreed with Elder McConkie’s conclusion about the “obviousness” of the point he was propounding, and (2) that his personal statement made in a work of private authorship did not constitute a doctrine of the Church.
No, I didn’t say that either. What I pointed out was that the history of Elder McConkie’s previous book shows that not everything an apostle ever publishes in a book automatically becomes a Church doctrine. It could just as easily have been a book by some other apostle. The point is that you’re wrong to think that publication by an apostle transforms an idea into a doctrine.
I haven’t seen that and you haven’t demonstrated it.
Maybe.
I’m claiming that it is nondoctine, with which I disagree.
Not necessarily, as I already explained in comment 81.
I don’t know how you can back such a categorical statement unless you have personal knowledge of everything that ever happens in every ward and branch of the Church.
There are some falsehoods that pose a danger and some that don’t. I believe this idea is false, and have shown why. I can come to a personal conclusion about it. On the other hand, since there is no doctrinal statement on the matter, there is nothing that requires faithful members of the Church to believe one way or the other about it.
No, I haven’t.
I think it’s false. I also say it’s not doctrine. The question of its falsity is separate from the question of whether it’s doctrine. I don’t know why you seem to be having trouble seeing the separateness of these issues.
If you want to put it that way, OK. I challenged rick’s statement that this idea is a doctrine of the Church.
What makes you say that? I thought the issue of whether this is a doctrine of the Church was important then, and I still do. I say it’s not a doctrine of the Church.
Rick was making the flawed assumption that the Church’s doctrine teaches something it doesn’t. He raised that issue by talking about it. I assume, when someone posts here, that he’s looking for reactions. I gave mine.
I don’t share your belief that challenging someone’s claims on this ‘blog is “being difficult.”
Why not indeed? Why not pose a simple question designed to elicit further information and understand what someone is saying? For instance, why not ask rick to explain which doctrine he’s talking about, so I can understand where he’s coming from? Sounds like a great idea to me.
A bishop isn’t expected to “mind his own business” with regard to those issues that are part of his ecclesiastical duties. He’s expected to do his job as a bishop, including those parts of the job that involve private matters. Perhaps a better way to put it is this: For a bishop, delving into certain private areas of the lives of his ward members is minding his own business.
On the other hand, he is free to mind his own business when it comes to private opinions about nondoctrinal matters. So I don’t think he’s in a no-win situation.
Rick, I maintain that the bishop is no more entitled to make up “church teachings” than I am. I’m not saying this doesn’t happen with over-zealous bishops, but I maintain that it’s innapropriate. Also, I believe the bishop gets a handbook about exactly what his business is. If he stays within those boundaries, I suppose he is minding his own business. Of course, as I said, if all the common members were able to mind their own business, the petty arguing would soon end.
I agree with Rick on most topics here, least the ones concerning the zealousness of the Bishopric postions. They (being the bishops) must ask questions that violate personal boundries. These questions range from “have you performed oral sex on your boyfriend” to the females to “have you been participating in heavy petting with your girlfriend” The list goes on and on. I am speaking from personal experience at 3 different wards, 3 different bishops.
In my opinion, which I formulated over the years under the shadow of a growing LDS church, was that the LDS have set it up so that you can’t argue against anything they do because “they” don’t do anything! By they I mean the general authority. Due to the lay status of the church, a large number of the members believe things that no one from the general authority ever truly taught. This is in part caused I think by the LDS position on the reliability of the Bible. Anything that doesn’t mesh with their faith they can blame on the poor translation of the Bible rather than accept that it is a lie.
The LDS religion is so clearly a revival religion clinging to a warped Christian view that I am amazed anyone stays in it. That very thought spurred me into my research which later led to a lengthy article written about the “Mormon culture”
Benjamin
Ah, you figured it out! I am amazed the members aren’t all following YOUR example!
They may not be following my example but I have swayed at least 20 people away from joining and deconverted dozens so I am doing my best. You may see it as wicked or wrong or damaging to them but in all reality, we as humans don’t really need to be following an imaginary being to know right from wrong and to comfort us in times of darkness. We MUST rely on one another to fill these needs as we are the creator of GOD not the other way around. Anyone who has a testimony of the LDS faith is most likely mistaken. The odds are not in favor of a GOD any way you spin it. We evolved through natural processes that we cannot explain as of yet but the scientific community are working on it
But not everyone believes He is imaginary. You do, so I wonder why you are commenting on this blog?
Yes, and you know everything right? This is one of the things that always amazes me. The people who believe THEY know what everyone else should think or believe. How about respecting right to choose? I will respect your right to disbelieve, and you respect mine to believe. If you can’t do that, then don’t bother coming back.
My goodness, if humans created God, we really are in trouble.
Mary, I’m not laughing at you right now, but I’m laughing out loud.
I think the same thing as you just described in your second paragraph every time the mishies go tromping up and down our street. ;)