Agreed.
Glenn Beck's coded language may refer to obscure LDS doctrine
- Thread starter sirkickyass
- Start date
Agreed.
Stickler
Well-Known Member
Jazzgal, I bet if you added up the times that you sat through a speech in Sacrament meeting where you found yourself slightly disagreeing with the theme or the message, because the speaker had interpreted a particular piece of scripture differently than you do, it would number in the dozens at least.
I'll give you an example. When I was about twelve or so, a man in our ward (who had nine kids) gave a sacrament meeting speech in which he passionately described the Catholic position on birth control, quoting from multiple places in the bible to demonstrate why using birth control was a sin and a gateway to hell. You wouldn't believe how much throat-clearing and uncomfortable shifting around there was in the chapel. Afterward there was a great deal of lingering in hallways as the adults discussed the controversy. On the ride home I asked my dad about it, and he said, "That's not what we believe."
I can't tell you how many times I've heard sacrament meeting speeches that involve the firey pits of hell, only to be provided with clarifications (sometimes immediately afterward in Sunday School) about the three kingdoms, outer darkness, and why that speech we just heard was not necessarily correct; but when we had doubts, or heard conflicting information, we knew what to do: search ponder and pray, baby.
I was recently having a conversation with a friend of mine who was asking me about some of the more controversial beliefs that get associated with Mormonism. Things like black people carrying the mark of Cain... I explained to him that in Mormonism there were beliefs that were solid church doctrine, as well as a smaller subset of beliefs that were "folk beliefs" -- things that were carried through generations regionally that other Mormons would find shocking.
Being Catholic, he was completely surprised that there were religions in which "folk beliefs" could even exist.
Another example would be the conflict between Mormonism and science: Generally, there isn't one. In Utah County elementary schools, we were taught global warming, evolution, natural selection, the big bang, etc. (I've read that they've stopped teaching evolution in Utah schools). And no Mormon I knew at the time had a problem with any of these issues. They tended to have a simple cosmological explanation for how these things fit with Mormon doctrine: God did them. Evolution was the process through which God created His creations, etc.
But since then I've met at least one Mormon who had scriptural reason to disagree with the science on each one of those issues.
We all know that it isn't very hard for someone with some time on his hands to digging and come up with a lot of statements and teachings by past Mormon leaders that conflict totally with current Mormon views. Have you never been in church or in conversation with other Mormons only to have one of them mention one of those views as though it were current and normal and accepted by everyone? At which point you probably grew a little bit uncomfortable, thought to yourself, "He's got that wrong," and changed the subject?
I would submit that that's a nearly universal experience for an LDS person.
By saying that the LDS church provides, as a matter of doctrine, the leeway for its members to believe many different things, I meant absolutely no offense; I didn't even think I was saying anything controversial. I didn't invent the adage, and in my experience, it mostly holds up. It's an exaggeration, naturally; but definitely many LDS people believe many different kinds of things.
I'll give you an example. When I was about twelve or so, a man in our ward (who had nine kids) gave a sacrament meeting speech in which he passionately described the Catholic position on birth control, quoting from multiple places in the bible to demonstrate why using birth control was a sin and a gateway to hell. You wouldn't believe how much throat-clearing and uncomfortable shifting around there was in the chapel. Afterward there was a great deal of lingering in hallways as the adults discussed the controversy. On the ride home I asked my dad about it, and he said, "That's not what we believe."
I can't tell you how many times I've heard sacrament meeting speeches that involve the firey pits of hell, only to be provided with clarifications (sometimes immediately afterward in Sunday School) about the three kingdoms, outer darkness, and why that speech we just heard was not necessarily correct; but when we had doubts, or heard conflicting information, we knew what to do: search ponder and pray, baby.
I was recently having a conversation with a friend of mine who was asking me about some of the more controversial beliefs that get associated with Mormonism. Things like black people carrying the mark of Cain... I explained to him that in Mormonism there were beliefs that were solid church doctrine, as well as a smaller subset of beliefs that were "folk beliefs" -- things that were carried through generations regionally that other Mormons would find shocking.
Being Catholic, he was completely surprised that there were religions in which "folk beliefs" could even exist.
Another example would be the conflict between Mormonism and science: Generally, there isn't one. In Utah County elementary schools, we were taught global warming, evolution, natural selection, the big bang, etc. (I've read that they've stopped teaching evolution in Utah schools). And no Mormon I knew at the time had a problem with any of these issues. They tended to have a simple cosmological explanation for how these things fit with Mormon doctrine: God did them. Evolution was the process through which God created His creations, etc.
But since then I've met at least one Mormon who had scriptural reason to disagree with the science on each one of those issues.
We all know that it isn't very hard for someone with some time on his hands to digging and come up with a lot of statements and teachings by past Mormon leaders that conflict totally with current Mormon views. Have you never been in church or in conversation with other Mormons only to have one of them mention one of those views as though it were current and normal and accepted by everyone? At which point you probably grew a little bit uncomfortable, thought to yourself, "He's got that wrong," and changed the subject?
I would submit that that's a nearly universal experience for an LDS person.
By saying that the LDS church provides, as a matter of doctrine, the leeway for its members to believe many different things, I meant absolutely no offense; I didn't even think I was saying anything controversial. I didn't invent the adage, and in my experience, it mostly holds up. It's an exaggeration, naturally; but definitely many LDS people believe many different kinds of things.
The Universal Church has the same issues. It's not uncommon for members to search for a church they're in more agreement with. Additionally, not all instruction comes from professionally trained clergy. They have Sunday school taught similar to LDS. Members of the clergy interpret things differently. That's what the Pope is for. LDS leadership is the equivalent. The difference lies in unprofessionally trained local leadership. However, they receive support and leadership from above. It comes down the cascade.
To suggest a structured religion has more variability than most others isn't a fair comparison. The unstructured churches are highly variable from church to church. When differences become too pronounced they split and new denominations are formed. It doesn't makes sense to compare LDS variability with something like the Baptist Convention. There's plenty of doctrinal variability in such unstructured churches. Mormonism is more similar in structure to Islam, Judaism, and Catholicism. Good luck comparing those four. I suggest Judaism and Islam have the most variability. Islam doesn't have a spiritual leadership and there are many rifts among the Jews--always has been.
What I meant was the basic doctrines of the church - things covered in the Articles of Faith, for example. In the Mormon church, if you go through Primary, young womens/mens programs, and seminary it is unlikely that you do not have a pretty decent understanding of the basic doctrines of the church.
I have talked to people in a various religions that really didn't know what the basic doctrines of their church were - what they believe God is like, the history of their church, the basic rules. I have been amazed by that - how do you go to a church if you don't really understand what the beliefs are? I have figured out that many people don't worry about the specific beliefs of their church - they basically want to worship God in whatever way they are comfortable. That is not the way most Mormons approach their beliefs.
I am well aware that there is a lot of misinformation in the Church, but that isn't what I meant by my statement. I can see what you mean, however.
I have talked to people in a various religions that really didn't know what the basic doctrines of their church were - what they believe God is like, the history of their church, the basic rules. I have been amazed by that - how do you go to a church if you don't really understand what the beliefs are? I have figured out that many people don't worry about the specific beliefs of their church - they basically want to worship God in whatever way they are comfortable. That is not the way most Mormons approach their beliefs.
I am well aware that there is a lot of misinformation in the Church, but that isn't what I meant by my statement. I can see what you mean, however.
I have seen one very Mormon member of this very board quite plainly screw up the second article of faith quite recently.
There are significant variations as to what portions of the Bible the eighth article of faith moots out.
The discussion of the gift of "tongues" in the seventh article of faith has been interpreted differently in different regions of the US. Particularly in areas where a fair number of members have converted from evangelical or pentacostal faiths.
The tenth article of faith refers to 1) a literal gathering of Israel and 2) that Zion will be established on the American continent. How those events relate to the present construction of the State of Israel in the Middle East is a subject of a significant amount of debate.
Just a handful of examples.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I gotta hear this story. Who on the board believes someone will be punished for Adam's transgression? When did I miss this?
Like what?
Examples please.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but are you aware of the Abrahamic Covenant?
Just a handful of examples.[/QUOTE]
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Anyways, I'm not sure what you're arguing here. The LDS church and its members are educated about basic beliefs far more than most churches/religion, but that's just my opinion.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Based on what?
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure I just said "my opinion". (Personal experience.)
GVC
Well-Known Member
So you have a lot of personal experience with most churches?
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I would be surprised if the LDS religion wasn't in the top ten (of the bigger Christian churches) of having the most educated members. Would you disagree?