Mormon Worldview

[huckelberry]

drumdude, I realize that theoretically you are correct. But it does not explain why Mormons spend a lot of time studying scripture. Yes the brethren provide approved interpretation and those interpretations are taught often.

Actually I think that there is enough strong headed Mormons clinging to their doctrines that a big reversal like you suggest would be a train wreck. Yes some people would nod and invent the idea that the new doctrine is clarification but I think there would be other reactions. There are reasons that there are not big revelations in conference. People want to hear the same ideas as before and that is what they get.

Sure they change policy about things like contraception.They could even adjust the earring guidelines. They adjust Book of Mormon interpretations like where but they are not abandoning the book nor are they making changes that will disturb grandfathers slumber.

Drumdude I suspect you are wanting to point out that Mormons may imagine that there is no need for change but change has happened. I do wonder if you are speaking as if the audience knows LDS beliefs and culture . You may be giving our new questioner a lopsided picture.

I just find it important to note that there was an entire work, Mormon Doctrine, created to answer his question. Which was viewed as authoritative by most Mormons until very recently. This seems to back up my argument that the real Mormon doctrine is just “follow the brethren.” But I know others may disagree.

This book Mormon Doctrine I have heard of but have never seen nor thought to search out. It is my assumption that there has always been some variety of thinking in the church and any particular summation could only be approximate. But this thought is the puzzle. You see, when I was last attending, David O. McKay was president. I think and see evidence that there was a significant shift towards uniformity and away from individual understanding after him. I really do not grasp how large a change it was, but I am sometimes surprised at the degree people talk about only follow the brethren or "pay, pray, and obey."

Here I am talking about lack of change when a big change is staring me in the face. Well, I may say it is one of policy and culture and not fundamental doctrines. Pgm asked about world view and I thought of doctrines like pre-existence, atonement, repentance, priesthood, eternal life, and three kingdoms. I had not seen change in those areas but you may be thinking of culture, sense of authority, and life instructions and seeing those change about and about.

[Dr. Shades]

Drumdude can find a few changes but there are millions of Mormons who know what their church teaches.

I'm sure you're one of the millions of Mormons who know what their church teaches, since, as you say, the doctrine hasn't changed. In that case, please tell us what your church's doctrine is regarding:

• Who are the principal ancestors of the American Indians?
• Did Noah's flood cover every inch of planet earth--a baptism by immersion--or was it a local event--a baptism by sprinkling?
• Was there anyone other than Jaredites in the Americas when Lehi and his group landed there?
• Do the prophets give their opinions in General Conference, do they give doctrine, or do they give a mixture of both?
• If the latter, why do they never clarify which they're giving?
• Where is the Hill Cumorah located?
• If the prophets say something that contradicts the Book of Mormon--like having many wives and concubines being an abomination before Him, and Jesus being both the Father and the Son--which/whom are Mormons supposed to believe?
• Are prophets men of the highest moral caliber--which is why God chose them--or are they no better than any average member of their society?
• Did the Book of Mormon take place over both American continents, or did it happen in a small portion of Central America?
• How are spirit children created?
• How was Jesus's mortal body created?
• Was God once a human?
• Does God have more than one wife?
• Does God have a "father God?"
• Were black people less valiant in the pre-existence?
• Is birth control a sin?
• Were Adam & Eve the very first human beings?
• Is the earth 6,000 years old, or is it 4 and 1/2 billion years old?
• Did anything die before Adam fell?
• Did lions eat meat before Adam fell?
• Did all human languages immediately appear at the Tower of Babel?
• Were living things able to reproduce before the Fall of Adam?
• Is a rainbow a "token" (or sign) from God that he won't destroy the earth through a global (or local) flood, or is a rainbow various bandwidths of sunlight refracted by water vapor?
• Does God live near a star called Kolob?
• Was Ezra Taft Benson correct when he said a woman's place is in the home?
• Is the Book of Abraham a document written by Abraham and translated by Joseph Smith, Jr.?
• When the Book of Mormon mentions a horse, does it really mean a horse?
• Was Brigham Young correct when he said that some sins are too heinous for Christ's atonement to cover, so the sinner's own blood must be shed?
• Was Brigham Young correct when he said that Adam & God were the same person?

Thanks in advance, huckelberry, for answering these questions about what the church teaches.

[pgm1985]

A Christian doctrine is developed by theologians to summarize a core teaching found in the Bible. These doctrines do not change over time, as Scripture does not change. The words are contextualized to fit into modern applications, but the meaning behind the words does not change. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares the truthfulness, authority, and purpose of God’s Word: 'All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.'

I am curious PGM1985; do you think that if a man who divorces his wife for irreconcilable differences only, and then remarries is committing adultery? I believe the person who wrote the Book of Matthew believes Jesus has concerns about divorce and made comments about it. Do you agree with what the Book of Matthew says about it?

Also, just to let you know that Mormons believe that what their leaders say today about the church and God is on par with what Timothy says and has the same authority; further, what some leaders say about the church and God is modern scripture.

The short answer is yes, if one divorces their spouse only for irreconcilable differences and remarries, that would adultery. I believe there are two conditions regarding when divorce is allowed, not required, found in the Bible, sexual immorality and abandonment. In Matthew 19, Jesus was also very clear that the intent should always be reconciliation, not divorce. "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Now in reference to Moses allowance of divorce in Deuteronomy 24, Jesus gives the reason for this as the hardness of the Israelites' heart. God's intent for marriage is to be a life-long covenant but because sin has entered the world, it has been corrupted. This highlights the great importance for a Christian to study the Bible and theology. We need to look at this fallen world through the lens of Scripture to know God's plan.

[pgm1985]

Of course there are Mormon leaders studying scriptures. Mormons are enthusiastic about teaching. Drumdude can find a few changes but there are millions of Mormons who know what their church teaches.

They don't find the answer to pgm's question in the scriptures. They find the answer in the brethren.

If the brethren say tomorrow that God doesn't have a body of flesh and blood, then that is the new doctrine. There is no appeal to scripture or even Joseph Smith's teachings that can override whatever the prophets decide to go with tomorrow.

I’m confused now. Why is there no appeal to scripture or Joseph Smith? Who are the prophets and where do they get their authority to decide what the Mormon church believes? Are the brethren and the prophets the same person? Again, I’m looking at this from a Christian perspective where the Bible is the final authority because it is the inerrant and authoritative Word of God. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints website explicitly says the Book of Mormon is “a divinely inspired record compiled by ancient prophets.” If Mormon church doctrine is to follow the prophet and disregard whatever the Book of Mormon says, what is the point of the Book of Mormon?

[Physics Guy]

As pgm1985 may not know, not everyone here is or ever was Mormon, and I'm one of the never-Mos. I've never considered myself Reformed, either, but I have good memories of Bible studies at a Reformed chaplaincy when I was an undergrad, around 1985. There was enough honesty to conclude, for example, that there really just wasn't any positive, uplifting message in the Book of Ecclesiastes, and that the Book of Judges is just a catalog of horrors to show bad things are without strong enough government.

So I don't mean to be hostile to pgm1985. I'm genuinely curious, though, about the reason to conclude that the Bible is so reliable. I mean, it's this really old book that coalesced from poorly known sources a long time ago.

Finding some wisdom in ancient Scriptures like the Bible, maybe even profound revelation, doesn't seem crazy to me. Ancient humans were as smart as we are, and they mostly lived in times harder than ours, so they may well have had things to say to which we should still listen.

But taking such an old collection of writings, many of which really just seem like weird or even disgusting old stories, to be the sole and authoritative source of answers to all the most important questions of life? Apart from the sheer mental inertia of accepting old traditions as unquestioned assumptions, why would anyone ever even think of attributing that much authority to the Bible?

[Physics Guy]

Why is there no appeal to scripture or Joseph Smith? Who are the prophets and where do they get their authority to decide what the Mormon church believes? Are the brethren and the prophets the same person? Again, I’m looking at this from a Christian perspective where the Bible is the final authority because it is the inerrant and authoritative Word of God. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints website explicitly says the Book of Mormon is “a divinely inspired record compiled by ancient prophets.” If Mormon church doctrine is to follow the prophet and disregard whatever the Book of Mormon says, what is the point of the Book of Mormon?

Though I've never been Mormon, that might actually make it easier for me to articulate some of the differences between Mormonism and other churches.

The biggest thing in Mormonism is the church itself. It's like Catholicism on steroids in this respect. The church is not just a group of people organised together in order to follow the Scriptures. Instead the Book of Mormon and the other specifically Mormon Scriptures are ultimately only important in pointing to the importance and authority of the church.

Miraculously recovering the lost ancient Scripture of the Book of Mormon (supposedly) was a kind of sign to establish that Joseph Smith was a Prophet. And then Smith's successors have always made out that the main message of Smith as a Prophet was that everyone should join the church that is led by his successors and participate in all of its rituals. So Mormons read their Scriptures a lot, but kind of just as a good thing to do while they're waiting for a modern-day Prophet to speak. It's all about the church itself: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Church of Being the Church.

[yellowstone123]

I am curious PGM1985; do you think that if a man who divorces his wife for irreconcilable differences only, and then remarries is committing adultery? I believe the person who wrote the Book of Matthew believes Jesus has concerns about divorce and made comments about it. Do you agree with what the Book of Matthew says about it?

Also, just to let you know that Mormons believe that what their leaders say today about the church and God is on par with what Timothy says and has the same authority; further, what some leaders say about the church and God is modern scripture.

The short answer is yes, if one divorces their spouse only for irreconcilable differences and remarries, that would adultery. I believe there are two conditions regarding when divorce is allowed, not required, found in the Bible, sexual immorality and abandonment. In Matthew 19, Jesus was also very clear that the intent should always be reconciliation, not divorce. "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Now in reference to Moses allowance of divorce in Deuteronomy 24, Jesus gives the reason for this as the hardness of the Israelites' heart. God's intent for marriage is to be a life-long covenant but because sin has entered the world, it has been corrupted. This highlights the great importance for a Christian to study the Bible and theology. We need to look at this fallen world through the lens of Scripture to know God's plan.

Thanks, pgm1985 for your thoughtful response.

[Dr. Shades]

Again, I’m looking at this from a Christian perspective where the Bible is the final authority because it is the inerrant and authoritative Word of God.

What makes you think the Bible is inerrant?

See The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

[Fence Sitter]

And, which Bible has he/she chosen as inerrant and why?

[huckelberry]

Shades, I tried to be clear that I did not intend to say there was a set one answer to every religiously related question in Mormonism. In Mormonism I was never given to believe such a thing. I remember there were different views on questions such as you list. I would expect there still are.