What is Considered Doctrine in the LDS Church

[hosemonkey]

I was recalling the part of the LDS Church abortion policy that states that abortion is permissible if the child would not live very long after birth.*** IOW, that short life is not worth living, so go ahead and abort.

---

The Third Reich had a similar policy with regard to those who’s lives were “not worth living.” The handicapped, the retarded, WWI veterans who had lost limbs, “defectives” of other sorts. All these were “humanely” despatched, even before the mass murders of Jews and other “undesirables” were contemplated. Of course, we must remember that these were “lives not worth living.” By who’s estimation? The only ones who are in favor of abortion, are those who are already alive.

I recall a story in Ina Mae Gaskin’s book “Spiritual Midwifery” about a little boy who was born anencephalic ie: with no brain, essentially. He had no possibility of long-term survival, but his parents lovingly cared for him. When he was left alone, he would call to them and was comforted by being held. When he died, his parents mourned him and gave him the dignity of a funeral and a name, just like a “real” person. A** “life not worth living.”** Tell his parents and all those who’s lives that he touched that his “life was not worth living.”

 

[JLFuller]

Dear JL;

I read every post on this thread before I posted my first response. So I don’t think I need to go back and do it again. You were the one who stated that LDS doctrine is tailored and adapted to the times. I cited polygamy as an example where there was an absolute reversal of doctrine. Ask any FLDS member and they will say that eternal progression and polygamy are absolutely intertwined, and that they are called by God to live as they do, in plural marriage. That was the position of Joseph Smith, and the original founding members of your LDS Church… but that doctrine and set of teachings was expressly rejected when the leaders of the LDS Church recognized that statehood in the Union was dependent upon rejection of the practice… and so it goes. I wonder what will happen if the U.S. government decides that state funds will be withheld from any state that does not recognize same-sex marriage? Will the LDS Church split again??? It would seem that what you described… “tailoring” doctrine to the time and circumstance would make such an event at least possible.

If I’m getting this wrong, please tell me how I’m misreading what you’ve stated. Because it seems to me that you’re implying that there’s something more than the mere development of doctrine that is sanctioned by the LDS hierarchy. That the LDS “Prophet” acting with the Quarum has the inate right, given by God, to change the rules to fit the times… It’s not about tying a rule to past doctrine, because it’s clear the rules have changed completely in the past, with no attempt to tie the change to prior doctrine. If you disagree, then please give me your explanation for the abrupt about-face on the matter of polygamy. And believe me, I do want to know the Truth. I’m not just hanking your chain here. I really want to know how you work your way through it logically.

Peace,
-Robert

Robert
You are getting it correct for as far as you go. The Fundamental LDS are not Mormons. They have a different theology. Polygamy is an ancient practice from OT times that was practiced only up to 1890 when the Church gave it up. It is not practiced by us but it is by the FLDS. It is an example of doctrine that changed to suit the times. In the USA, it was illegal and, as I understand it, we gave it up because it was more of a problem than a solution. I am afraid I am not the person to tell you much about it though because I know so little.

Regarding homosexual marriage, the Church stands against it. It is a biblical injunction. . Homosexuality is not sanctioned now either. Polygamy was allowed in ancient times but now not in current times. Polygamy and statehood were linkled but that isn’t the entire story. Practicing members were imprisoned for practicing it and families were broken up. Polygamy was causing more damage than it was worth.

Regarding eternal marrriage, people are given in marriage after death although the ceremony has to be perfomed on earth but if you ask me to dig out the doctrine I am not able to. You can research it on your own if you like. What prevents a prophet from makng big changes in doctrine? He does not make doctrine, Jesus Christ does. No doctrine is made without the Savior’s approval. It is then acknowleded by the Twelve and First Presidency. If I am correct it would likely be something the prophet had been suggesting as a solution to some current problem and had taken it the Lord for instrruction on how to handle it.

The change in who can hold the priesthood is another examaple of change in doctrine. If you read the story of how it came about you find that prophets have been praying to have it changed for decades. It wasn’t until 1978 that the Lord finally relented. The cynics don’t believe it but then they don’t believe anything. Other changes have of course taken place but I am not sure you could say they were doctrinal changes but rather policies or practices. For example the Church never used to sanction cremation but that won’t work in some countries because of the lack of cemetary space. Do you have any other questions about doctrine versus practices?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I was talking about the book JL told me to read. The book is written by a man who does not believe in the resurrection of Christ. I was telling him that I couldn’t believe he was even reading the book because the man is not even Christian. Unless LDS do not believe in the resurrection either?

***"The resurrection of the body is an essential Christian doctrine, as the apostle Paul declares: “*f the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:13–18).

Because, as Paul tells us, the Christian faith cannot exist without this doctrine, it has been infallibly defined by the Church. It is included in the three infallible professions of faith—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed—and has been solemnly, infallibly taught by ecumenical councils. "****
catholic.com/library/Resurrection_of_the_Body.asp

Oh. OK. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Jash]

…I cited polygamy as an example where there was an absolute reversal of doctrine.

Robert I do not think that citing polygamy as an absolute reversal of doctrine is entirely fair. While the practice is no longer embraced by the LDS church the past practice is also not condemned.

Doctrinally, it is taught that the practice was part of the restoration of all things. When the practice of this doctrine threatened the very existence and well-being of his church the Lord commanded (through the current prophet) its practice be suspended.

Additionally consider that we doctrinally believe in “being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” This is stated in one of the 12 tenants written by Joseph Smith summarizing our faith. Imagine the doctrinal difficulty when the US declared polygamy illegal. Two doctrines were brought into conflict. Simply put the lesser doctrine lost.

…Ask any FLDS member and they will say that eternal progression and polygamy are absolutely intertwined, and that they are called by God to live as they do, in plural marriage. That was the position of Joseph Smith, and the original founding members of your LDS Church…

I don’t know any FLDS personally and therefore have no basis to disagree with the statement but I do question the second half. Polygamy in the early church was not practiced by all who embraced the LDS faith. It was a unique calling. As I understand it additional wives had to be given to the man by one with authority to sanction the union. I have never seen anything taught by Joseph or Brigham to suggest it’s practice is “absolutely intertwined” with our eternal progression.

…I wonder what will happen if the U.S. government decides that state funds will be withheld from any state that does not recognize same-sex marriage? Will the LDS Church split again??? It would seem that what you described… “tailoring” doctrine to the time and circumstance would make such an event at least possible.

The abolishment of polygamy had nothing to do whatsoever with the state of Utah and everything to do with the welfare of the church and its doctrine. I am surprised you would even suggest such an occurrence. The events you describe above would in no way affect the doctrines of the LDS Church. State funds are a state matter. The LDS Church would likely fight such legislation tooth and nail but it would never change its doctrine to obtain state funding.

 

[PaulDupre]

I have never seen anything taught by Joseph or Brigham to suggest it’s practice is “absolutely intertwined” with our eternal progression.

Really?

“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.”

• Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, page 269

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my protest against this idea, for I know it is false… Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith,… he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected…

"If then, this principle was of such great importance that the Prophet himself was threatened with destruction,... it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law, or that a man with only one wife can obtain as great a reward, glory or kingdom as he can with more than one,...

"**I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that.**"

• Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 28-31

In 1891 the First Presidency and Apostles of the Mormon Church made the following statement in a petition to the President of the United States:

“We formerly taught to our people that polygamy or celestial marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come.”

• Reed Smoot Case, vol. 1, page 18

 

[ParkerD]

Whoa! Hold on there LoGgirly.

My understanding is that the LDS Church does hold to the belief in Jesus’ Resurrection. If there are any participating LDS members who don’t accept it, or believe that acceptance of the Resurrection is not essential to your denomination’s teachings, I’d like to hear your take on it.

For that matter, I’d like to hear the LDS position on the Resurrection, whatever it may be. If one of you LDS members is kind enough to start another thread giving your belief concerning the Resurrection, would you please PM me so I could join in?

Peace,
-Robert

P.S. - My brother is a member of the LDS faith. He’s a good man. And I know that the LDS Church does a lot of good to be proud over - especially concerning the recent Prop. 8 Amendment in California. So, please believe me I’m not looking to smear LDS persons individually. And to the extent we can join together to work for social justice on matters like marriage and abortion, I’m all for it. However, it would be wrong to overlook the significant and troublesome differences of opinion regarding what we believe concerning Jesus Christ and His Church. And I’m not inclined to just “give a pass” to LDS members who state conclusions regarding doctrinal issues that are inconsistent with my (admittedly limited) experience with your religion.

Robert in SD,
I enjoyed reading about you. Thanks. The LDS believe in the literal, corporeal resurrection of every person who has or will ever live on this earth, and that this is a free gift because of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You could read from the Book of Mormon, Alma 11, on this topic. We also believe all infants or young children who die unequivocally and automatically go to heaven because of Christ and because they were not yet accountable. The resurrection means that each and every one of us will live forever. That would be a pretty important reason why we should give this life and its choices serious consideration, and seek God’s help in understanding His will in our lives. We ought to pray for that help every day.

 

[Jash]

Paul,

Those are very interesting quotes. If they are 100% accurate and were given as doctrine, not opionon, from Brigham young I stand corrected. As always, I would be very interested to find out how they were recorded, by whom and in what sort of setting. No one as of yet has been able to produce these for me when quoting the JoD.

I did like part of what you bolded in the second part though:

the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned…

Let us consider that bolded statement for a moment. Consider our twelfth article of faith “obeying, honoring and sustain the law.” Does an individual or a church for that matter have the ability to practice polygamy righteously when the country in which they reside has laws which forbid that practice?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Is righteousness determined by the laws of men, or by God?

 

[Jash]

Is righteousness determined by the laws of men, or by God?

What a wonderful question! I am sure you can reason it out if you think of laws in terms of greater and lesser laws and consider what may govern those weights in the eyes of God. Although, this might be difficult if you don’t have a clear understanding of his nature or at least the object of his existence.

 

[RebeccaJ]

What a wonderful question! I am sure you can reason it out if you think of laws in terms of greater and lesser laws and consider what may govern those weights in the eyes of God. Although, this might be difficult if you don’t have a clear understanding of his nature or at least the object of his existence.

I think it is clear that you are not able to discern who is God, and who is not. The laws of of men are not lesser laws of God’s. And certainly, if one believes God has given a law, it isn’t possible for the laws of men to be greater than that law.

I understand this is a difficult concept for someone who views God as merely a man.

 

[ParkerD]

I think it is clear that you are not able to discern who is God, and who is not. The laws of of men are not lesser laws of God’s. And certainly, if one believes God has given a law, it isn’t possible for the laws of men to be greater than that law.

I understand this is a difficult concept for someone who views God as merely a man.

RebeccaJ,
I’m surprised that you live in Utah yet have such an incorrect concept about LDS beliefs. How is a Supreme Being who is Omniscient, Omnipotent, the Upholder of all things and the source of all truth “merely a man”? Do you think the fact that He has a glorified, brilliantly radiant body makes Him less than the God you believe in? Describe the God you believe in in minute detail for all of us readers, please.

 

[hosemonkey]

Robert

You are getting it correct for as far as you go.

The Fundamental LDS are not Mormons. They have a different theology.

If the FLDS are NOT mormons, then what are they? They have been repudiated by mainstream mormonism for simply practicing the mormonism of your “prophet.” Do they regard the Old Men of Salt Lake City as their “prophet” or does Warren Jeffs occupy that office? And how does their theology differ?

Polygamy is an ancient practice from OT times that was practiced only up to 1890 when the Church gave it up. It is not practiced by us but it is by the FLDS.

Polygamy is NOT an ancient Christian practice, but instead a practice that Joseph Smith decreed to satisfy his uncontrolable lust in the 1830s. With the State of Utah itself estimating that there are over 30,000 mormons practicing polygamy, are all those people FLDS, or are some “regular” mormons doing a little kanoodling on the side? Hmmmm?

It is an example of doctrine that changed to suit the times. In the USA, it was illegal and, as I understand it, we gave it up because it was more of a problem than a solution. I am afraid I am not the person to tell you much about it though because I know so little.

Then may I suggest that if you want to be a mormon apologist, you had better know more than the person asking you questions.

 

[hosemonkey]

RebeccaJ,

I’m surprised that you live in Utah yet have such an incorrect concept about LDS beliefs. How is a Supreme Being who is Omniscient, Omnipotent, the Upholder of all things and the source of all truth “merely a man”? Do you think the fact that He has a glorified, brilliantly radiant body makes Him less than the God you believe in? Describe the God you believe in in minute detail for all of us readers, please.

You describe all the attributes of God. Where you stray into heresy is where you describe God as “an exalted man, a man of flesh and bones.” God is a Being of pure Spirit. Not an exalted man."of Flesh and Bone. By whom was He exalted? There is no One above Him. You stray into blasphemy when you believe that you, slime and dust of the earth, can become a “God.” this belief is both blasphmemous and laughable.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,
I’m surprised that you live in Utah yet have such an incorrect concept about LDS beliefs. How is a Supreme Being who is Omniscient, Omnipotent, the Upholder of all things and the source of all truth “merely a man”? Do you think the fact that He has a glorified, brilliantly radiant body makes Him less than the God you believe in?

I know exactly what LDS believe ParkerD. I am a convert to Catholicism from mormonism.

Perhaps I should quantify my statement. Perhaps it is difficult for mormons to discern who is God, and who is not, when you view God as nothing more than a man with super powers.

Describe the God you believe in in minute detail for all of us readers, please.

ParkerD, I will be not be your tool against God. You will have to satisfy your lust to own the powers of God, your Creator, from somewhere else.

You should be more careful of your soul.

 

[PaulDupre]

Let us consider that bolded statement for a moment. Consider our twelfth article of faith “obeying, honoring and sustain the law.” Does an individual or a church for that matter have the ability to practice polygamy righteously when the country in which they reside has laws which forbid that practice?

If you were a Christian in the 2nd century AD Roman Empire, when the Roman government outlawed the practice of Christianity. would you give up the worship of the true God and worship the emperor, or would you allow yourself to be fed to the lions, as so many of the early saints did?

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

Oh. OK. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No problem, I’ve done it so many times…LOL

 

[zaffiroborant]

Interesting, I have never heard of an excommunication for an abortion in the LDS church. Nor is there ever an “automatic” excommunication that I know of. Is excommunication from the Catholic church permanent or can the person repent and return?

Never heard of an excommunication for abortion? Yet if you are an inactive, non tithe paying, non garment wearing guy who produces a beefcake calendar of former missionaries posing shirtless, you are excommunicated (and denied your diploma from BYU) in a heart beat. Some how I just can’t understand the priorities

 

[ParkerD]

I know exactly what LDS believe ParkerD. I am a convert to Catholicism from mormonism.

Perhaps I should quantify my statement. Perhaps it is difficult for mormons to discern who is God, and who is not, when you view God as nothing more than a man with super powers.

ParkerD, I will be not be your tool against God. You will have to satisfy your lust to own the powers of God, your Creator, from somewhere else.

You should be more careful of your soul.

It wasn’t hard to predict that you wouldn’t describe your belief. I will ask another question for which I predict you will give a similar non-response:

Describe in as minute detail as you can, what you will be doing on a day to day basis in a million years.

 

[PaulDupre]

Never heard of an excommunication for abortion? Yet if you are an inactive, non tithe paying, non garment wearing guy who produces a beefcake calendar of former missionaries posing shirtless, you are excommunicated (and denied your diploma from BYU) in a heart beat. Some how I just can’t understand the priorities

 

[ParkerD]

You describe all the attributes of God. Where you stray into heresy is where you describe God as “an exalted man, a man of flesh and bones.” God is a Being of pure Spirit. Not an exalted man."of Flesh and Bone. By whom was He exalted? There is no One above Him. You stray into blasphemy when you believe that you, slime and dust of the earth, can become a “God.” this belief is both blasphmemous and laughable.

Hosemonkey,
I’ll ask you also, what do your beliefs lead you to believe you will be doing in a million years on a day to day, minute by minute basis?