What is Considered Doctrine in the LDS Church

[LDSGuy]

religious universities definitely limit “thinking” to various extents, since they do have to uphold the theologies and world views that come with that religion. I attend a major Catholic university, and know that there are various measures put in place to make sure that the Catholic/Jesuit views are upheld.

 

[MelanieAnne]

religious universities definitely limit “thinking” to various extents, since they do have to uphold the theologies and world views that come with that religion. I attend a major Catholic university, and know that there are various measures put in place to make sure that the Catholic/Jesuit views are upheld.

That may be true. But somehow I doubt that someone that is supposedly an Apostle of Jesus Christ has to be “nasty, aggressive and rude” in order to carry out such policies.

 

[PaulDupre]

religious universities definitely limit “thinking” to various extents, since they do have to uphold the theologies and world views that come with that religion. I attend a major Catholic university, and know that there are various measures put in place to make sure that the Catholic/Jesuit views are upheld.

I would expect a religious university to uphold its doctrinal positions in the classroom, but this group was discussing at the off-campus apartments of the group members. The group was private and had nothing to do with the university. BYU does not have license to restrict free speech off campus and the LDS church has no authority to threaten people in their homes.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

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.

What is the excommunication policy in the Mormon Church? What happens after one is excommunicated?

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

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.

Yay, this is right up my alley! I am a bartender and have been for 8 years, may I add that I am an award winning bartender at that (I created a drink)…sorry bout boasting, but I was excited bout winning that!. I have never had a regular that only ordered non-alchoholic beverages. People who don’t drink come to the restaurant all the time, but they don’t sit at the bar. When I do get someone a non-alcoholic drink, it is usually someone in passing, but never a regular. . Why don’t y’all drink wine anyways? Jesus even drank wine!

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

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.

Yay, this is right up my alley! I am a bartender and have been for 8 years, may I add that I am an award winning bartender at that (I created a drink)…sorry bout boasting, but I was excited bout winning that!. I have never had a regular that only ordered non-alchoholic beverages. People who don’t drink come to the restaurant all the time, but they don’t sit at the bar. When I do get someone a non-alcoholic drink, it is usually someone in passing, but never a regular. . Why don’t y’all drink wine anyways? Jesus even drank wine!

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

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.

You believed stuff Joseph Smith said, why not believe Melanie Anne? What makes Joseph Smith saying something more reliable than MelanieAnne saying something?

 

[Stephen168]

religious universities definitely limit “thinking” to various extents, since they do have to uphold the theologies and world views that come with that religion. I attend a major Catholic university, and know that there are various measures put in place to make sure that the Catholic/Jesuit views are upheld.

Do you have an example on ‘thinking limits’ that were in place?

 

[ParkerD]

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.

Paul,
I am sure that I have also come across as “nasty, aggressive and rude” here in this forum, for which I apologize.
Elder Packer can come across as pretty dogmatic and authoritarian, as well as what could be termed “aggressive” as he speaks on sensitive matters in ways whereby he is seeking not to be misunderstood. It sounds like his action in that case turned out to be counter-productive. Perhaps he needed to have listened more and spoken less.

It sounds like the woman you married had good reason to be offended. In my way of thinking, the desires of her heart are what the one Perfect Judge will be fully aware of, and the only thing that will count in the hereafter which not one of us nor Elder Packer knows. That “clause” in LDS doctrine encompasses a wide number of people–the answer to the question, “What were the desires of their heart?” See D & C 137 and Alma 41 for the detailed doctrine.

As far as BY, I strongly disagree with some of his expressed opinions, if they have been accurately transcribed as he said them or wrote them. I am firmly convinced that LDS doctrine can only be considered “doctrine” if it is in the standard works with more than one point of reference, or if it is a statement agreed upon by the entire First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. I think BY sometimes spoke before he thought, which has ended up being a pebble in many people’s shoe.

 

[dianaiad]

He did have alcohol,

Ah, but you didn’t specify that in your post, but were careful to avoid specifying that, and indeed, wiggled around it so completely that now…

I don’t believe you, MelanieAnne. I think you are telling a fanciful story. NOW I want the brand of the alcohol, the name of the bar, the name of the apostle and the name of the bartender. I’m calling you on this one.

I mean, if I were to tell you that I have a friend who saw a priest kissing a girl in a manner decidedly not ‘fatherly,’ you would ask me the same thing–and given the seriousness of the accusation, you would not only have every right to demand it, I would have to provide it–or admit that I was telling a ‘story,’ too.

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?

I didn’t ask for the specific brand, label, etc. I asked whether it was alcoholic. Seems like a reasonable request.

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.

I wasn’t asking for that level of detail. Just…was there alcohol in it? You went to some lengths to avoid mentioning the word, y’know.

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?

Well…yeah, actually.

Or because the bartender didn’t mention the precise beverage that the omission proves he lied? And you say I’m amazing?

There’s a word for what you are doing. It’s called erecting a strawman. I did not ask for the precise brand of alcohol. I asked whether the beverage was alcoholic at all, and you, well…went to some lengths to wiggle out of saying that. I actually put that down to a fundamental honesty on your part. You might be willing to hint, or to slander by sideswipe, but you weren’t quite ready to actually lie about it.

Until now, that is.

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.

Not THAT, anyway. We do have a beloved general authority who had a bit of a problem with a coffee habit and a tendency to use very colorful language; we love him and J.Golden Kimble stories abound. However, the odds that you are lying through your teeth are FAR higher than the odds that a member of the Quorum of the twelve (who you conveniently do not name) went into a bar and ordered an alcoholic drink. Unless, of course, your friend is over a 150 years old.

In other words, whether you are lying to us, or your friend lied to you…it didn’t happen.

I will, of course, apologize deeply and sincerely if you can give us the name of the apostle, the time, date and the name of the bar. Oh, your friend’s name would be nice, too, so that we could e-mail him or her and ask for confirmation of the information.

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.

You made the accusation. You prove it—or admit that you can’t. The thing is, even if an apostle DID drink alcohol (looking at this from a very practical outside point of view) the odds that he would go into a flippin’ BAR and order one are pretty low. You don’t get to that level in the church hierarchy by being stupid. Believe me, if that had happened, it would be all over the anti-Mormon world, complete with names, dates and yes, the specific brand of booze consumed.

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.

I’m not the one suspending disbelief here. That would be those who would swallow your story just because they don’t like Mormons.

The thing is, Melanie, I know that Mormons go in bars. I know that they drink booze, and smoke–a Mormon who does not live according to the Word of Wisdom is still a Mormon. But think about this a second; a member of the Quorum of Apostles has been very publically working in the church for many years. He has been doing things and been close to the church for all those years. He is VERY aware of opposition to the church, and extremely aware that he, as an apostle, is watched very closely. Every move he makes is scrutinized, especially by enemies of the church, and those who would dearly love to catch him doing something he should not be doing.

As well, if he wanted to drink, he could do so privately very easily. It makes absolutely NO sense that one would just walk into a bar and order a drink. None. You want to talk about suspending disbelief?

Well, thats what it would take to believe what YOU are telling us. You are telling me that an unnamed friend served an unnamed beverage to an unnamed member of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles, and you are accusing ME of ‘suspending disbelief’ because I’m not automatically swallowing it?

(shaking head)

Like I said, you are amazing.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Melanie, ‘served’ or not served, this is the deal: this is a serious accusation; so serious that, if proven, it would have extremely nasty consequences for the apostle involved and the church. It is akin to a Cardinal walking into a strip joint in full regalia to get a lap dance. Now the Cardinal might get away with it, but for an LDS apostle to go into a bar and get a drink?

It is excommunication worthy.

So yeah, you are asking me to suspend disbelief big time here, and since it is your accusation, you get to prove it.

When.
Name of the bar.
Name of the apostle.
Name of the bartender.

A way for us to confirm it…or do not repeat it again. If true, you can give us this information.

If false, such an accusation is the nastiest of slanders; career and life wrecking, and as much as you dislike Mormons and Mormonism, you can’t possibly be in favor of unjustly hurting others.

So how about it?

 

[dianaiad]

You believed stuff Joseph Smith said, why not believe Melanie Anne? What makes Joseph Smith saying something more reliable than MelanieAnne saying something?

I believe 'stuff Joseph Smith said" because I read, studied and prayed about it, and received an affirmative answer from the Holy Ghost.

Melanie Ann?

Not so much. SHE gets to prove her allegations.

 

[twopekinguys]

Melanie, ‘served’ or not served, this is the deal: this is a serious accusation; so serious that, if proven, it would have extremely nasty consequences for the apostle involved and the church. It is akin to a Cardinal walking into a strip joint in full regalia to get a lap dance. Now the Cardinal might get away with it, but for an LDS apostle to go into a bar and get a drink?

It is excommunication worthy.

So yeah, you are asking me to suspend disbelief big time here, and since it is your accusation, you get to prove it.

When.
Name of the bar.
Name of the apostle.
Name of the bartender.

A way for us to confirm it…or do not repeat it again. If true, you can give us this information.

If false, such an accusation is the nastiest of slanders; career and life wrecking, and as much as you dislike Mormons and Mormonism, you can’t possibly be in favor of unjustly hurting others.

So how about it?

Your comment “It is akin to a Cardinal walking into a strip joint in full regalia to get a lap dance. Now the Cardinal might get away with it” is obnoxious, rude, and uncalled for. You didn’t have to go that far, and you know it. You are just trying to be inflammatory at this point.

Now who needs to apologize?

 

[dianaiad]

Paul,
I am sure that I have also come across as “nasty, aggressive and rude” here in this forum, for which I apologize.
Elder Packer can come across as pretty dogmatic and authoritarian, as well as what could be termed “aggressive” as he speaks on sensitive matters in ways whereby he is seeking not to be misunderstood. It sounds like his action in that case turned out to be counter-productive. Perhaps he needed to have listened more and spoken less.

It sounds like the woman you married had good reason to be offended. In my way of thinking, the desires of her heart are what the one Perfect Judge will be fully aware of, and the only thing that will count in the hereafter which not one of us nor Elder Packer knows. That “clause” in LDS doctrine encompasses a wide number of people–the answer to the question, “What were the desires of their heart?” See D & C 137 and Alma 41 for the detailed doctrine.

As far as BY, I strongly disagree with some of his expressed opinions, if they have been accurately transcribed as he said them or wrote them. I am firmly convinced that LDS doctrine can only be considered “doctrine” if it is in the standard works with more than one point of reference, or if it is a statement agreed upon by the entire First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. I think BY sometimes spoke before he thought, which has ended up being a pebble in many people’s shoe.

I love BY, but he was a product of his times and of his job; a less opinionated man couldn’t have accomplished what he did accomplish. The problem is that while MORMONS understand both his greatness and his limitations, the anti’s keep insisting that every thing he said HAD to have been scripture. Why? Not because WE think so, but because it suits the anti’s.

Wouldn’t you think that, when it comes to the doctrines WE believe in, that WE should be the people who get to say what they are?

Diana

 

[dianaiad]

Your comment “It is akin to a Cardinal walking into a strip joint in full regalia to get a lap dance. Now the Cardinal might get away with it” is obnoxious, rude, and uncalled for. You didn’t have to go that far, and you know it. You are just trying to be inflammatory at this point.

Now who needs to apologize?

No. That example was very carefully chosen to be something that WE would consider an equally problematic thing to do. After all, to us a member of the Quorum of Twelve apostles is at least the equivalent of a Cardinal. For an apostle to go into a bar and order a drink, to US, would be a betrayal of his promises and covenants to the extent that allowing a lap dance would be a betrayal of a priest’s vow of chastity.

After all, it’s not a sin for a Cardinal to walk into a bar and order a drink. I had to find an equivalent action.

…and yes, the Cardinal MIGHT get away with it. HOW many of your Popes have had children, for instance? He might be counseled, he might be disciplined…he might be forced to retire somewhere–but the odds of him being excommunicated for such a thing are slim to none.

The apostle who went into a bar and got a drink?

That…nope, he’d get ex’d.

And any apostle would know that, and THAT is why I don’t believe Melanie’s story.

So yeah, it was inflammatory. I wanted you to understand EXACTLY how insulting such an accusation is to us. Your reaction tells me that you may be getting the point.

Maybe.

 

[twopekinguys]

No. That example was very carefully chosen to be something that WE would consider an equally problematic thing to do. After all, to us a member of the Quorum of Twelve apostles is at least the equivalent of a Cardinal. For an apostle to go into a bar and order a drink, to US, would be a betrayal of his promises and covenants to the extent that allowing a lap dance would be a betrayal of a priest’s vow of chastity.

After all, it’s not a sin for a Cardinal to walk into a bar and order a drink. I had to find an equivalent action.

…and yes, the Cardinal MIGHT get away with it. HOW many of your Popes have had children, for instance? He might be counseled, he might be disciplined…he might be forced to retire somewhere–but the odds of him being excommunicated for such a thing are slim to none.

The apostle who went into a bar and got a drink?

That…nope, he’d get ex’d.

And any apostle would know that, and THAT is why I don’t believe Melanie’s story.

So yeah, it was inflammatory. I wanted you to understand EXACTLY how insulting such an accusation is to us. Your reaction tells me that you may be getting the point.

Maybe.

I notice you left out the portion of your post talking about being in full regalia (Vestments is the correct term) and getting a lap dance. There was no call for it, and you know it. You just plain didn’t have to go there.

Remember where I mentioned earlier about you “skimming”? Well, I’m afraid you did it again. She already addressed why she wouldn’t give the information. Like it or not, she addressed it.

 

[zaffiroborant]

No. That example was very carefully chosen to be something that WE would consider an equally problematic thing to do. After all, to us a member of the Quorum of Twelve apostles is at least the equivalent of a Cardinal. For an apostle to go into a bar and order a drink, to US, would be a betrayal of his promises and covenants to the extent that allowing a lap dance would be a betrayal of a priest’s vow of chastity.

After all, it’s not a sin for a Cardinal to walk into a bar and order a drink. I had to find an equivalent action.

…and yes, the Cardinal MIGHT get away with it. HOW many of your Popes have had children, for instance? He might be counseled, he might be disciplined…he might be forced to retire somewhere–but the odds of him being excommunicated for such a thing are slim to none.

The apostle who went into a bar and got a drink?

That…nope, he’d get ex’d.

And any apostle would know that, and THAT is why I don’t believe Melanie’s story.

So yeah, it was inflammatory. I wanted you to understand EXACTLY how insulting such an accusation is to us. Your reaction tells me that you may be getting the point.

Maybe.

I think this post somehow shatters peripheral issues and exposes part of the bedrock of why I could never join the LDS church. Honestly I can’t really articulate the reason or feeling but somehow it just says no.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I quite frankly don’t care whether Diana believes me or not. Since she has basically called me a liar, repeatedly, there is no reason for me to have any concern about her opinion about my character, I already know what it is. I know that I am telling the truth, and I know that the bartender who related the incident to me was also truthful. My conscience is clear.

As for the nonsense that has been written here, the ridiculous accusations ~ I’m not even going to read them any further. What little I have read shows no relation to reality, hence there is no value to read any more of it ~ it’s all drivel. The things written have nothing to do with me, they are all the inventions of those who wrote them and say far more about the writers than anyone else. It’s a pity that such imagination isn’t put to constructive use.

Further, I am not going to indulge those screaming for names and other details of this incident for the reasons I have already given ~ I am not going to expose those persons directly involved to the possibility of harassment, or worse. And I have no doubt that that’s EXACTLY what would happen if I did provide the details. In addition, details would serve no constructive purpose ~ even if I had an authenticated video of the event, there would be Mormons who would not believe it happened.

What is significant here is the drama exhibited by the supporters of the so-called “apostle” ~ the reflexive denial of even the possibility that someone in the hierarchy might do something against their stated code and the immediate accusations that anyone who says otherwise is a liar. That says a lot about them. It says nothing about those who observed or reported the situation.

There are those who seem to want to inflate this into high drama, carrying on endlessly and provocatively for days. They are free to so I suppose. I have no interest in such histrionics or other forms of unproductive dialog and will no longer read the posts of such persons as there is no value in doing so.

 

[hosemonkey]

I quite frankly don’t care whether Diana believes me or not. Since she has basically called me a liar, repeatedly, there is no reason for me to have any concern about her opinion about my character, I already know what it is. I know that I am telling the truth, and I know that the bartender who related the incident to me was also truthful. My conscience is clear.

As for the nonsense that has been written here, the ridiculous accusations ~ I’m not even going to read them any further. What little I have read shows no relation to reality, hence there is no value to read any more of it ~ it’s all drivel. The things written have nothing to do with me, they are all the inventions of those who wrote them and say far more about the writers than anyone else. It’s a pity that such imagination isn’t put to constructive use.

Know watcha mean, MelanieAnne, I used to live in Memphis,TN (the stronghold of the teetotaling Baptists) and there a lot of liquor stores in Memphis. When I was confronted by some of my Fire Department Baptist buddies about my Catholic, laissez-faire atitude toward consumption of alcholic beverages, I remarked on the hypocracy shown by your average Baptist. I simply said that there were not enough Catholics in the whole city to keep all those liquor stores open, so there must have been quite a few Baptists sneaking in to buy booze. I suspect that the same holds true for the good mormons of Salt Lake City and environs. I would bet hard money that if the sainted Q12 don’t hang around in bars, they still know how to lay hands on a little hootch. They strike me as more like hard-nosed businessmen rather than men of God. Oh! and that guy with a coffee problem!!! Doesn’t he know that coffee will give you delirium tremens and a powerful urge to write bad checks? God save us!

 

[ParkerD]

What is the excommunication policy in the Mormon Church? What happens after one is excommunicated?

Lamb of God Girly,
My guess is that there are perhaps 1 out of 1,000 active LDS members excommunicated each year, based on my limited experience. It is done privately, based on detailed knowledge established by people who may be directly involved or are assigned to “hear” the case. Usually the cause is unrepentant infidelity, or in some few cases the continuous public teaching of known controversial or false doctrine.

Afterwards, the LDS church tries to maintain contact with the person and be supportive if there is a family involved, to the extent that it is accepted by that person. Some are re-baptized, of which I know a case personally from 20 years ago. But then, I only know of a handful of people whom I have known personally who have been excommunicated–maybe 4 or 5 in my lifetime.

As to your question about drinking wine, my personal opinion is that the LDS doctrine known as the Word of Wisdom (D & C 89) has as much to do with learning to be master of our body and to not succomb to the advertising techniques in the modern media as with the actual health benefits of living in abstinence of coffee, caffeine tea, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco (and narcotic drugs). We really do consider our bodies to be a temple as Paul taught often.

I once had a bite of some English trifle that was brought to my office when I worked in Georgia for a potluck lunch, and when I tasted it (out of ignorance) I could detect alcohol so I discretely walked out of the room and spit it out, because I didn’t like the taste and immediately got a headache. That’s how sensitive some of us are to alcohol. My great-grandfather died from alcoholism–those would be some reasons why that would be a hot-button topic for me.

I have a personal friend who is well acquainted with all of the Quorum of the Twelve personally, another friend who is the golf pro at a Salt Lake City area country club, another friend who knows many “general authority” anecdotes because of some driving he did for them over the years. I thought about asking them the question at hand, but I suppose their answer wouldn’t matter to anyone reading here. 'Hope I’ve adequately covered your questions.

By the way, I don’t pretend to think the Quorum of the Twelve are “saints”, but they are good, deep-thinking people. They do disagree with each other on some matters that come up, and reach unanimity within their quorum and with the First Presidency only after long discussions sometimes. That is a check and balance system that I think works well.