What is Considered Doctrine in the LDS Church

[PaulDupre]

I’m sure that if you were properly motivated, you could find a Catholic priest somewhere who said most anything you want to find. The problem is that priests have no authority to speak for the church, or to declare doctrine or interpret scripture in opposition to the magisterium.

I’m sure if I tried I could find some local LDS bishops that said some things that would be damaging to Mormonism, but they have no authority to speak for your church either, do they?

 

[JLFuller]

I’m sure that if you were properly motivated, you could find a Catholic priest somewhere who said most anything you want to find. The problem is that priests have no authority to speak for the church, or to declare doctrine or interpret scripture in opposition to the magisterium.

I’m sure if I tried I could find some local LDS bishops that said some things that would be damaging to Mormonism, but they have no authority to speak for your church either, do they?

Of course the magisterium is the final arbitor of doctrine but is it the church historian too? Has RCC doctrine changed at all over the years?

 

[ParkerD]

I’m sure that if you were properly motivated, you could find a Catholic priest somewhere who said most anything you want to find. The problem is that priests have no authority to speak for the church, or to declare doctrine or interpret scripture in opposition to the magisterium.

I’m sure if I tried I could find some local LDS bishops that said some things that would be damaging to Mormonism, but they have no authority to speak for your church either, do they?

Paul and others,
I decided I would add one final note on this thread, to add to the spot-on comments by JLFuller and LDSGuy. Sorry if I have offended anyone. I was occasionally sarcastic, as a method of trying to get people to “think outside of the box.”

I want you folks to know that I think what the Catholic church currently does in the world is a boon. This website has two ongoing popups about chastity and overcoming addiction to pornography. I think that’s great. As I had said earlier, as far as I’m concerned faithful Catholics will go to the heaven they want to go to, a place that “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor entered into the heart of man” because it will be so glorious.

Quite a bit has been said here about LDS “doctrine” not being fixed, or not being taught correctly, such as this comment by Paul. One of the most important doctrinal beliefs of the LDS church is the belief in free agency–not just freedom of choice, but freedom to act without being forced in any way, either by cooercion, by some type of domination, by threats of punishment, or by any other action or statement that doesn’t allow a person the full range of their own decision-making.

An exception to this is with children who haven’t yet learned of dangers in the world that could hurt them if they were left without some clear direction and knowledge of consequences if they don’t follow guidelines in a home setting or at school or with friends.

Back to the concept: there is a lot of breadth in how LDS doctrinal concepts are taught, because of the allowance for full agency and freedom to express how the gospel fits in with our own life personally. Everyone may not see the world the same way; they may emphasize different things, even "go overboard " on some things that they personally think are important because of their personal experiences. So if you talk to different Mormons you’re not going to hear the “same doctrines” expressed exactly the same way. The gospel is not fixed in stone for us, because we are still learning new things every day. I personally am very grateful for that. I trust the bishops in our church even if they might sometimes not say things the way I would have said them, or done things the way I would have done them. My observation is that the Spirit–the Holy Ghost–allows a breadth of expression based on everyone’s different experience, yet we have four sets of scriptures to keep our thoughts directed toward “standard doctrine” that does not change.

Some people who leave the LDS church probably do so because they are uncomfortable with everyone participating from different levels of understanding, different backgrounds. They may prefer something more concrete such as Catholicism. To each their own. They get what they want. I think God knew there would end up being a “smorgasboard” of religions when he planned our world, and was OK with that, knowing it would allow for unconstrained full free agency for adults as they interacted with the world around them.

My wish would be for peace to all of you. Thanks, JLFuller, for carrying on. Sorry if I have botched things up or caused anyone to have further misunderstanding.

 

[JLFuller]

Paul and others,
I decided I would add one final note on this thread, to add to the spot-on comments by JLFuller and LDSGuy. Sorry if I have offended anyone. I was occasionally sarcastic, as a method of trying to get people to “think outside of the box.”

I want you folks to know that I think what the Catholic church currently does in the world is a boon. This website has two ongoing popups about chastity and overcoming addiction to pornography. I think that’s great. As I had said earlier, as far as I’m concerned faithful Catholics will go to the heaven they want to go to, a place that “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor entered into the heart of man” because it will be so glorious.

Quite a bit has been said here about LDS “doctrine” not being fixed, or not being taught correctly, such as this comment by Paul. One of the most important doctrinal beliefs of the LDS church is the belief in free agency–not just freedom of choice, but freedom to act without being forced in any way, either by cooercion, by some type of domination, by threats of punishment, or by any other action or statement that doesn’t allow a person the full range of their own decision-making.

An exception to this is with children who haven’t yet learned of dangers in the world that could hurt them if they were left without some clear direction and knowledge of consequences if they don’t follow guidelines in a home setting or at school or with friends.

Back to the concept: there is a lot of breadth in how LDS doctrinal concepts are taught, because of the allowance for full agency and freedom to express how the gospel fits in with our own life personally. Everyone may not see the world the same way; they may emphasize different things, even "go overboard " on some things that they personally think are important because of their personal experiences. So if you talk to different Mormons you’re not going to hear the “same doctrines” expressed exactly the same way. The gospel is not fixed in stone for us, because we are still learning new things every day. I personally am very grateful for that. I trust the bishops in our church even if they might sometimes not say things the way I would have said them, or done things the way I would have done them. My observation is that the Spirit–the Holy Ghost–allows a breadth of expression based on everyone’s different experience, yet we have four sets of scriptures to keep our thoughts directed toward “standard doctrine” that does not change.

Some people who leave the LDS church probably do so because they are uncomfortable with everyone participating from different levels of understanding, different backgrounds. They may prefer something more concrete such as Catholicism. To each their own. They get what they want. I think God knew there would end up being a “smorgasboard” of religions when he planned our world, and was OK with that, knowing it would allow for unconstrained full free agency for adults as they interacted with the world around them.

My wish would be for peace to all of you. Thanks, JLFuller, for carrying on. Sorry if I have botched things up or caused anyone to have further misunderstanding.

I think you did a good job.

 

[PaulDupre]

Of course the magisterium is the final arbitor of doctrine but is it the church historian too? Has RCC doctrine changed at all over the years?

Changed in the way LDS doctrine has changed, like 180 degree turns, no.

Developed, as in better, deeper understanding of fundamental truths, yes. John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote a very good essay on the subject called “On the Development of Christian Doctrine”. If you want to understand the process, you would do well to read the book. It is extremely well written and not too long, so it is a fairly easy read.

 

[PaulDupre]

Quite a bit has been said here about LDS “doctrine” not being fixed, or not being taught correctly, such as this comment by Paul. One of the most important doctrinal beliefs of the LDS church is the belief in free agency–not just freedom of choice, but freedom to act without being forced in any way, either by cooercion, by some type of domination, by threats of punishment, or by any other action or statement that doesn’t allow a person the full range of their own decision-making.

Is that why Boyd K. Packer regularly goes down to BYU on witch-hunts to feret out groups that are talking about Adam-God or polygamy or blood atonement? When my wife was at BYU, she participated in a discussion group that for a few weeks were researching BY’s Adam-God doctrine. Someone snitched on them, and Boyd K. Packer (the LDS Church’s Lord High Inquisitor) went to BYU and threatened them with expulsion and excommunication if they did not stop discussing these things.

These were not children. They were all over 18 and most were returned missionaries well over the age of 21.

Elder Packer and others from the Q12 still do this. If you think there is intellectual freedom in the LDS church, just talk to the “September Six” - professors who were purged from BYU and excommunicated from the LDS church a few years ago for writing truthfully about LDS history, or respected LDS historian Fawn Brodie who was excommunicated for writing the best biography to date on Joseph Smith (No Man Knows My History).

The LDS church says “Not everything that is true is useful”. That means, anything that is not calculated to create blind loyalty to the LDS church is not allowed to be written or spoken, or read.

 

[ParkerD]

Is that why Boyd K. Packer regularly goes down to BYU on witch-hunts to feret out groups that are talking about Adam-God or polygamy or blood atonement? When my wife was at BYU, she participated in a discussion group that for a few weeks were researching BY’s Adam-God doctrine. Someone snitched on them, and Boyd K. Packer (the LDS Church’s Lord High Inquisitor) went to BYU and threatened them with expulsion and excommunication if they did not stop discussing these things.

These were not children. They were all over 18 and most were returned missionaries well over the age of 21.

Elder Packer and others from the Q12 still do this. If you think there is intellectual freedom in the LDS church, just talk to the “September Six” - professors who were purged from BYU and excommunicated from the LDS church a few years ago for writing truthfully about LDS history, or respected LDS historian Fawn Brodie who was excommunicated for writing the best biography to date on Joseph Smith (No Man Knows My History).

The LDS church says “Not everything that is true is useful”. That means, anything that is not calculated to create blind loyalty to the LDS church is not allowed to be written or spoken, or read.

Paul,
You raised a valid point, but I will briefly explain the difference.

First, let me mention that a reader here can look up a good article on the “September Six” in Wikipedia. One of the sixth has been re-baptized, and three of them still attend LDS services. All were not BYU professors.

I’ve read some of Fawn Brodie’s book. It was her interpretation of J.S.’ psychological background and “history”, hence her own speculation. “Rough Stone Rolling” is a far better “history” of Joseph Smith, with far more academically sound research.

I said there was a breadth of understanding in the LDS church. I didn’t say members were allowed to teach anything they wanted to teach and call it LDS doctrine, especially to teach by publishing writings or by publically repeatedly criticizing LDS church leaders.

Students at BYU sign an agreement that they will abide by certain standards of behavior. If they don’t want to abide by those standards, they ought not attend BYU. There are plenty of other good universities in the world. And if people are going to be super-critical of LDS church leaders but seek to remain in the church and to continue to “teach” their super-critical ideas, then the church has an obligation to other members to protect them (especially youth) by not letting there be “ravening wolves” among the members. Christ clearly taught this.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Is that why Boyd K. Packer regularly goes down to BYU on witch-hunts to feret out groups that are talking about Adam-God or polygamy or blood atonement? When my wife was at BYU, she participated in a discussion group that for a few weeks were researching BY’s Adam-God doctrine. Someone snitched on them, and Boyd K. Packer (the LDS Church’s Lord High Inquisitor) went to BYU and threatened them with expulsion and excommunication if they did not stop discussing these things.

These were not children. They were all over 18 and most were returned missionaries well over the age of 21.

Elder Packer and others from the Q12 still do this. If you think there is intellectual freedom in the LDS church, just talk to the “September Six” - professors who were purged from BYU and excommunicated from the LDS church a few years ago for writing truthfully about LDS history, or respected LDS historian Fawn Brodie who was excommunicated for writing the best biography to date on Joseph Smith (No Man Knows My History).

The LDS church says “Not everything that is true is useful”. That means, anything that is not calculated to create blind loyalty to the LDS church is not allowed to be written or spoken, or read.

The high-handed methods of the Q12 also extend to hypocrisy in their personal lives and I find that troublesome. Although it is by no means the most egregious example I know of hypocrisy when it comes to LDS doctrine and practice, I am personally acquainted a young man who for years worked as a bartender (and later bar manager) at a Country Club in Utah where he served a member of the Q12 on a regular basis. Some LDS may find this hard to believe about one of their sainted Q12, but it has occurred. Routinely.

Apparently it is OK to preach one lifestyle, but if you are a high enough member of the Church, it is also acceptable to live another. I suspect that the Q12 know very well all the facts about all these doctrines that they seek to make into taboo subjects and practices for the vast majority of other LDS. Of course that’s just my personal opinion.

While the LDS church may preach freedom, actual practice is decidedly otherwise if, for example there are LDS doctrine subjects that cannot be discussed on the BYU campus without risking expulsion. And while I have no personal problem with an Apostle having any sort of alcoholic beverage, the hypocrisy of doing so and then proceeding to preach against such a thing in the next General Conference is rather striking.

 

[ParkerD]

The high-handed methods of the Q12 also extend to hypocrisy in their personal lives and I find that troublesome. Although it is by no means the most egregious example I know of hypocrisy when it comes to LDS doctrine and practice, I am personally acquainted a young man who for years worked as a bartender (and later bar manager) at a Country Club in Utah where he served a member of the Q12 on a regular basis. Some LDS may find this hard to believe about one of their sainted Q12, but it has occurred. Routinely.

Apparently it is OK to preach one lifestyle, but if you are a high enough member of the Church, it is also acceptable to live another. I suspect that the Q12 know very well all the facts about all these doctrines that they seek to make into taboo subjects and practices for the vast majority of other LDS. Of course that’s just my personal opinion.

While the LDS church may preach freedom, actual practice is decidedly otherwise if, for example there are LDS doctrine subjects that cannot be discussed on the BYU campus without risking expulsion. And while I have no personal problem with an Apostle having any sort of alcoholic beverage, the hypocrisy of doing so and then proceeding to preach against such a thing in the next General Conference is rather striking.

MelanieAnn,
For a grandmother, you surely don’t write like one.
I was amused by your story. An apostle golfs at a country club, goes to the restaurant there and orders a beverage, and now your friend gets to imply that the apostle has ordered alcohol? What a silly inference! And you believed them? Gullibility and gossip go hand in hand. Have a nice day.

 

[MelanieAnne]

MelanieAnn,
For a grandmother, you surely don’t write like one.
I was amused by your story. An apostle golfs at a country club, goes to the restaurant there and orders a beverage, and now your friend gets to imply that the apostle has ordered alcohol? What a silly inference! And you believed them? Gullibility and gossip go hand in hand. Have a nice day.

I wrote the truth. It’s unfortunate that you apparently believe that your discomfort with the truth somehow gives you the right to call anyone a liar or to indulge in other sorts of pejoratives.

Perhaps you’re not familiar with the situation, but when someone is at a BAR the most typical beverage served is one that contains alcohol. And when someone is a BARTENDER and is the person responsible for serving the customer what they ordered, I know it may sound like a fanciful tale to you, but that bartender actually KNOWS what they served. There’s no INFERENCE here, it’s FACT. A troublesome fact for you perhaps, but still fact.

Personally, I don’t care one way or the other what anyone, including an Apostle, has to drink, but I find the hypocrisy of preaching one thing and doing another rather obnoxious. It’s also interesting that your automatic reaction is to call someone a liar and start calling them names when you don’t like the facts. If you believe you’re setting yourself up as a paragon of maturity, you would be wrong.

 

[ParkerD]

I wrote the truth. It’s unfortunate that you apparently believe that your discomfort with the truth somehow gives you the right to call anyone a liar or to indulge in other sorts of pejoratives.

Perhaps you’re not familiar with the situation, but when someone is at a BAR the most typical beverage served is one that contains alcohol. And when someone is a BARTENDER and is the person responsible for serving the customer what they ordered, I know it may sound like a fanciful tale to you, but that bartender actually KNOWS what they served. There’s no INFERENCE here, it’s FACT. A troublesome fact for you perhaps, but still fact.

Personally, I don’t care one way or the other what anyone, including an Apostle, has to drink, but I find the hypocrisy of preaching one thing and doing another rather obnoxious. It’s also interesting that your automatic reaction is to call someone a liar and start calling them names when you don’t like the facts. If you believe you’re setting yourself up as a paragon of maturity, you would be wrong.

MelanieAnne,
So calling you a gossip is a pejorative?
This is fun, and laughter promotes longevity. How about you list the name of your friend, and I’ll be able to call and get a first-hand detailed account. I have no problem with that at all. I would be delighted to do it.

 

[MelanieAnne]

MelanieAnne,
So calling you a gossip is a pejorative?
This is fun, and laughter promotes longevity. How about you list the name of your friend, and I’ll be able to call and get a first-hand detailed account. I have no problem with that at all. I would be delighted to do it.

Actually Parker, I find most everything that you write to be so uncharitable, and contrary to the agreement that you accepted when joining this forum, that I am no longer interested in continuing any sort of dialog with you. Accordingly, at the conclusion of this post, I will proceed to put you on my ignore list. That way, no matter when you really DO decide to leave, for me you will leave today.

I’m not going to give you the name of the person who observed a member of the Q12 drinking alcohol so that you can have them harassed or fired. I’m not that naive, and quite frankly, giving you that information wouldn’t change the situation in any way. You would still believe that the person who testified to the facts here was lying, no matter what. You would still carry on your tactic of name calling when you don’t like the information. So there is no point in giving you such information.

The example I cited was told to me by the person who served the alcoholic beverage, I was not there to see it. But I’ve personally witnessed a variety of abuses carried out by various members of the Mormon hierarchy, going up to the First Presidency. The example a cited here was the least of them. Your reaction of immediately calling someone a liar and assorted other names when you don’t like the facts presented is an interesting insight into your character, but I have to say it is also rather typical. BYE.

 

[ParkerD]

Actually Parker, I find most everything that you write to be so uncharitable, and contrary to the agreement that you accepted when joining this forum, that I am no longer interested in continuing any sort of dialog with you. Accordingly, at the conclusion of this post, I will proceed to put you on my ignore list. That way, no matter when you really DO decide to leave, for me you will leave today.

I’m not going to give you the name of the person who observed a member of the Q12 drinking alcohol so that you can have them harassed or fired. I’m not that naive, and quite frankly, giving you that information wouldn’t change the situation in any way. You would still believe that the person who testified to the facts here was lying, no matter what. You would still carry on your tactic of name calling when you don’t like the information. So there is no point in giving you such information.

The example I cited was told to me by the person who served the alcoholic beverage, I was not there to see it. But I’ve personally witnessed a variety of abuses carried out by various members of the Mormon hierarchy, going up to the First Presidency. The example a cited here was the least of them. Your reaction of immediately calling someone a liar and assorted other names when you don’t like the facts presented is an interesting insight into your character, but I have to say it is also rather typical. BYE.

MelanieAnne,
I assure you I wouldn’t have “gotten them fired.” I feel charitable towards you. So everyone who challenges your beliefs, your opinions and your stories is uncharitable? Do you believe every hair dresser, every taxi-cab driver, and every bartender you have ever known? Your quote on your tag line ought to say “Anyone who doesn’t believe anything that MelanieAnne writes is fair game for MelanieAnne to target in whatever way she sees fit. MelanieAnne knows everything, and has the one perfect view of the world.” Bye.

 

[hosemonkey]

MelanieAnne knows everything, and has the one perfect view of the world." Bye.

That is a good description of almost every mormon on these fora. But really, I think melanieAnne has got your number.

 

[ParkerD]

That is a good description of almost every mormon on these fora. But really, I think melanieAnne has got your number.

Hosemonkey,
I apologize to you and to her and to JDFuller. My comment was uncalled for. I overreacted. I certainly do have a biased view of the world–no question about that.

 

[dianaiad]

I wrote the truth. It’s unfortunate that you apparently believe that your discomfort with the truth somehow gives you the right to call anyone a liar or to indulge in other sorts of pejoratives.

Perhaps you’re not familiar with the situation, but when someone is at a BAR the most typical beverage served is one that contains alcohol. And when someone is a BARTENDER and is the person responsible for serving the customer what they ordered, I know it may sound like a fanciful tale to you, but that bartender actually KNOWS what they served. There’s no INFERENCE here, it’s FACT. A troublesome fact for you perhaps, but still fact.

Personally, I don’t care one way or the other what anyone, including an Apostle, has to drink, but I find the hypocrisy of preaching one thing and doing another rather obnoxious. It’s also interesting that your automatic reaction is to call someone a liar and start calling them names when you don’t like the facts. If you believe you’re setting yourself up as a paragon of maturity, you would be wrong.

Melanie, you didn’t say that the man actually had alcohol. You were very careful NOT to say that, or to claim that your bartender friend said that. In fact, your response was also very careful, I notice…you still didn’t come right out and claim that the beverage had alcohol in it, but rather you resorted to the 'well OF COURSE it did, it was a BAR, wasn’t it?" sort of silliness.

Well excuse me, but bars also serve cokes. or seven up. I was a waitress in a trainstation for a year, earning my tuition to BYU. Every evening, after my shift (at 1AM) I went into the bar adjoining the restaurant, and the bartender there served me a beverage.

It was Seven-up with pomegranate juice and a cherry in it. Sometimes the bartender (who didn’t drink either, though he wasn’t LDS) would bring the drink to me in the restaurant.

Ah, but of course, there MUST have been some phantom alcohol in there somewhere. It was, after all, a BAR, right?

You are amazing.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Melanie, you didn’t say that the man actually had alcohol. You were very careful NOT to say that, or to claim that your bartender friend said that. In fact, your response was also very careful, I notice…you still didn’t come right out and claim that the beverage had alcohol in it, but rather you resorted to the 'well OF COURSE it did, it was a BAR, wasn’t it?" sort of silliness.

Well excuse me, but bars also serve cokes. or seven up. I was a waitress in a trainstation for a year, earning my tuition to BYU. Every evening, after my shift (at 1AM) I went into the bar adjoining the restaurant, and the bartender there served me a beverage.

It was Seven-up with pomegranate juice and a cherry in it. Sometimes the bartender (who didn’t drink either, though he wasn’t LDS) would bring the drink to me in the restaurant.

Ah, but of course, there MUST have been some phantom alcohol in there somewhere. It was, after all, a BAR, right?

You are amazing.

He did have alcohol, but the person I know who served him did not specify the brand and type. But the person that told me about the situation was the person who took the drink order, as well as the person who served the drink. It was an alcoholic beverage, and it was served to and consumed byo a member of the Q12. How would increased specificity of the brand, label, etc. change the scenario? When the bartender told me about it, our conversation was about the hypocrisy of the situation not the precise brand of alcohol served. I didn’t ask for that level of detail.

So what’s so “amazing”? Are you saying that since I didn’t ask for more detail about the alcohol that somehow that shows I’m a liar? Or because the bartender didn’t mention the precise beverage that the omission proves he lied? And you say I’m amazing?

What’s amazing is the denial that you and Parker went into immediately. I guess for some people it’s simply not possible for one of the sainted Q12 to do something contrary to the Mormon code. So it’s easier to just immediately start making accusations that someone is telling a lie, or read all kinds of nonsense into the situation that is more a product of the reader’s imagination than anything else.

But hey, that’s fine, go ahead and suspend belief ~ just make sure that you’re consistent and refuse to believe in the personal failures of everyone else too. I trust then, that you also would never believe that any other member of any other church hierarchy would ever act contrary to their church’s moral code, right? That’s good to know.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Melanie, you didn’t say that the man actually had alcohol. You were very careful NOT to say that, or to claim that your bartender friend said that. In fact, your response was also very careful, I notice…you still didn’t come right out and claim that the beverage had alcohol in it, but rather you resorted to the 'well OF COURSE it did, it was a BAR, wasn’t it?" sort of silliness.

Well excuse me, but bars also serve cokes. or seven up. I was a waitress in a trainstation for a year, earning my tuition to BYU. Every evening, after my shift (at 1AM) I went into the bar adjoining the restaurant, and the bartender there served me a beverage.

It was Seven-up with pomegranate juice and a cherry in it. Sometimes the bartender (who didn’t drink either, though he wasn’t LDS) would bring the drink to me in the restaurant.

Ah, but of course, there MUST have been some phantom alcohol in there somewhere. It was, after all, a BAR, right?

You are amazing.

I don’t think she danced around the question of whether or not alcohol was served. I’ve worked as a waitress (food and cocktail) bartender and sold packaged goods in a grocery store. “Serving” has always referred to the sale of alcohol, not the sale of food or non-alcoholic beverages. You would never say you “served” a 10 year old, you waited on them but there is no way you served them

In order to be a waitress, bartender or retailer of alcohol where I live you need a permit that has to be renewed every 5 years, in order to obtain one you must attend classes. In these classes serving is the term used to cover the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Serve is also the word used when telling war stories of the people refused for various reasons. So you see in the hospitality industry the word “serve” has a specific meaning.

Also in a later post she did mention that the bartender knew what was served.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Thanks Zaffiroborant. It’s true that I used the word “serve” in the way you have described. That, coupled with the fact that the nature of my discussion with the bartender was more about how unexpected the situation was and not the variety of alcohol served is the reason we never got into the actual name of the alcoholic beverage.

But I’m not sure that’s really this issue with the “deniers” here. It appears to be more reflexive denial rather than anything more substantive. It is often the case with persons interested in advancing an agenda to ignore pesky things like FACTS. It’s been a common tactic among those who lack facts but have the ability to make a lot of noise to drown out anything with which they disagree.

 

[PaulDupre]

Students at BYU sign an agreement that they will abide by certain standards of behavior. If they don’t want to abide by those standards, they ought not attend BYU. There are plenty of other good universities in the world. And if people are going to be super-critical of LDS church leaders but seek to remain in the church and to continue to “teach” their super-critical ideas, then the church has an obligation to other members to protect them (especially youth) by not letting there be “ravening wolves” among the members. Christ clearly taught this.

These students were not being critical of anyone. In fact, they were trying to find out what Brigham Young taught about Adam-God because they had heard that BY’s teachings on the subject had been disavowed by the church and they wanted to understand how a true prophet could teach false doctrine. One of the group suggested that perhaps the doctrine was not false, but only misunderstood. Therefore, the group decided to read and study what BY had taught to see if they could find where the misunderstanding may have occurred.

They were only trying to protect their testimonies of latter-day prophets. But hey, that’s what they get for thinking at BYU. Thinking - at a university - the very idea!

Elder Packer’s behavior (she says he was “nasty, aggressive and rude”) planted a seed that yielded rich fruit about 10 years later.