Chapel vs. Internet Mormon

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Chapel vs. Internet Mormon

Post by _Gazelam »

On the recent Mormon Expression Podcast our own Dr. Shades re-expressed his views regarding what he perceives to be a division in the church. Namely that members of the Church that explore the internet for Church teachings are better informed and share a vastly different faith than those members who stick strictly with the curriculum distributed by Church Headquarters.

As anyone who has sat in on an hour of Gospel Doctrine class knows there is a vast dichotomy of belief among members in general, exposed to the internet or not. There has been a great deal of opinion printed about Mormon doctrine since the Church was first organized. Anyone who has read something like Cleon Skousens The First Two Thousand Years knows that people can say just about anything as a member of the Church. There is a vast difference between that book and Bruce R McConkie's Mormon Doctrine.

Many may question why Church Headquarters does not publish manuals that deal with some of the controversial issues that trouble some members of the Church. This is easily explained when one reads the Lord's instructions to his Apostles:

D&C 6
9 Say nothing but repentance unto this generation; keep my commandments, and assist to bring forth my work, according to my commandments, and you shall be blessed.


In addition to this Joseph Smith taught:
“Oh, ye elders of Israel, hearken to my voice; and when you are sent into the world to preach, tell those things you are sent to tell; preach and cry aloud, ‘Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; repent and believe the Gospel.’ Declare the first principles, and let mysteries alone, lest ye be overthrown. … Preach those things the Lord has told you to preach about—repentance and baptism for the remission of sins.”

“I spoke and explained concerning the uselessness of preaching to the world about great judgments, but rather to preach the simple Gospel.”

“The Elders [should] go forth … in all meekness, in sobriety, and preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified; not to contend with others on account of their faith, or systems of religion, but pursue a steady course. This I delivered by way of commandment; and all who observe it not, will pull down persecution upon their heads, while those who do, shall always be filled with the Holy Ghost; this I pronounced as a prophecy.”


In regards to members of the Church having various views on peripheral doctrines Jospeh F Smith stated :

Our people are given the largest possible latitude for their convictions, and if a man rejects a message that I may give to him but is still moral and believes in the main principles of the gospel and desires to continue in his membership in the church, he is permitted to remain and he is not unchurched. It is only those who on rejecting a revelation rebel against the church and withdraw from the church at their own volition.

I should like to say to the honorable gentlemen that the members of the Mormon Church are among the freest and most independent people of all the Christian denominations. They are not all united on every principle. Every man is entitled to his own opinion and his own views and his own conceptions of right and wrong so long as they do not come in conflict with the standard principles of the church. If a man assumes to deny God and to become an infidel we withdraw fellowship from him. If a man commits adultery we withdraw fellowship from him. If men steal or lie or bear false witness against their neighbors or violate the cardinal principles of the Gospel, we withdraw our fellowship. The church withdraws its fellowship from that man and he ceases to be a member of the church. But so long as a man or a woman is honest and virtuous and believes in God and has a little faith in the church organization, so long we nurture and aid that person to continue faithfully as a member of the church, though he may not believe all that is revealed.
(Source: Reed Smoot Hearings )

.
.
.
.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Re: Chapel vs. Internet Mormon

Post by _Gazelam »

Image

Apostle Charles W. Penrose (1904-1925) stated:

It is folly for anti-"Mormon" writers to state or insinuate that "Mormonism" requires it votaries to surrender their consciences to "the keeping of others." All the standards of doctrine recognized by the Latter-day Saints teach the contrary. Individual responsibility for every act, is one of the principles most forcibly urged upon their attention. No person can be held responsible for performing anything which he is not perfectly free to do or abstain from doing. Intelligent understanding of truth and practical conformity therewith, freely and voluntarily rendered, are the means by which people are to be saved and exalted, according to the teachings of "Mormonism."

There is nothing in it which requires any human being to deliver up his freedom of thought or action "to the keeping of another." The very opposite is inculcated. And there is no such thing in practice in the "Mormon" Church. Good advice is given. The wise will follow it. Only the foolish will reject good counsel. But it is not compulsory on any one. If it were, the agency of those compelled would be destroyed or infringed. And that would be hostile to the whole spirit and tenets of "Mormonism." If "Mormonism" were a system which forced the views and edicts of a "priesthood" upon its members, as some of its enemies pretend, there would be no need of preaching, exhorting, advising and persuading people to do right and avoid wrong. All that would be necessary would be the issuance of an order, or proclamation, and that would suffice. Sermons, articles, arguments from the press and everything except a command, would be needless. The fact that persuasion, and counsel, and admonition and exhortation are continually resorted to in the Church is proof in itself of the fallacy of the compulsory notion.

The truth is, the "Mormon" people are too independent of the counsel of their leaders, for their own good. The disposition to reject all restraint and reject good advice, so common to this age, exists too largely among the Saints for their present and eternal welfare. That "obedience is better than sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of rams," was enunciated ages ago by a prophet of the Most High. It is as true and applicable today as it was when uttered. Humility and tractability are taught in the Christian religion as essentials. And while everybody must be free to think and act for themselves, or they could not be justly held accountable, at the same time the counsel of God cannot be rejected with impunity, nor can the advice of His servants be neglected with profit and safety.

The Gospel, or "Mormonism," is a perfect law of liberty. It is also a rule of life. He who receives and follows it willingly and without compulsion will find joy in his obedience, and by humbling himself to its precepts will be exalted in the kingdom of heaven.

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Ray A

Re: Chapel vs. Internet Mormon

Post by _Ray A »

Gazelam wrote:In regards to members of the Church having various views on peripheral doctrines Jospeh F Smith stated :

Our people are given the largest possible latitude for their convictions, and if a man rejects a message that I may give to him but is still moral and believes in the main principles of the gospel and desires to continue in his membership in the church, he is permitted to remain and he is not unchurched. It is only those who on rejecting a revelation rebel against the church and withdraw from the church at their own volition.

I should like to say to the honorable gentlemen that the members of the Mormon Church are among the freest and most independent people of all the Christian denominations. They are not all united on every principle. Every man is entitled to his own opinion and his own views and his own conceptions of right and wrong so long as they do not come in conflict with the standard principles of the church. If a man assumes to deny God and to become an infidel we withdraw fellowship from him. If a man commits adultery we withdraw fellowship from him. If men steal or lie or bear false witness against their neighbors or violate the cardinal principles of the Gospel, we withdraw our fellowship. The church withdraws its fellowship from that man and he ceases to be a member of the church. But so long as a man or a woman is honest and virtuous and believes in God and has a little faith in the church organization, so long we nurture and aid that person to continue faithfully as a member of the church, though he may not believe all that is revealed.
(Source: Reed Smoot Hearings )


So why were the September Six, and David Wright excommunicated? If there is so much "tolerance" and "latitude" given?

Let me remind you of his letter:

First of all, scholarship is not some sort of sin, a "failing of the flesh," which an individual recognizes to be an error and which that individual considers to be a blemish to his or her personal integrity. Scholarship, rather, is a constructive activity and is one of the purest expressions of a person's character. Scholarship involves a failing of the flesh, paradoxically, only when one is not forthright with his or her conclusions, when one holds back evidence, when one dissembles about his or her views in the face of social--or ecclesiastical--pressure. To express one's views, especially when they fly in the face of tradition, in other words, is hardly a sin but rather a virtue. Because Church disciplinary proceedings treat scholarship as if it were sinful, and even employ along the way the polemical myth that sin is what is responsible for a scholar's unorthodox views, the proceedings are an attack on the individual's integrity.


Would he be classed under the "infidel" category?
_silentkid
_Emeritus
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:50 pm

Re: Chapel vs. Internet Mormon

Post by _silentkid »

Gazelam wrote:Image


Pass the pomade, Dapper Dan.

As to the OP: Chapel Mormons win 3 out of 5 times in a cage match.
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Re: Chapel vs. Internet Mormon

Post by _Gazelam »

Ray,

I have only a peripheral understanding of all that went on with the September 6. That being said I think intellectuals are only cast out when they seek to take their studies and then use them to try to shape the church to fit their "educated" view.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Toscano (spellcheck) seeking to change the church's stance on women in the priesthood? I think someone seeking to change the church from the membership up is in error. We follow the prophet, he doesent follow us.

Gaz
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Ray A

Re: Chapel vs. Internet Mormon

Post by _Ray A »

Gazelam wrote:I have only a peripheral understanding of all that went on with the September 6.


That's obvious, Gaz.

Gazelam wrote:That being said I think intellectuals are only cast out when they seek to take their studies and then use them to try to shape the church to fit their "educated" view.


But what if their "educated view" is the truth? Galileo was placed under house arrest for advocating views that every school child knows today. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for advocating views that every school child knows today.

Will it take the Mormon Church 500 years (like the Catholic Church) to finally apologise to its "intellectuals"?
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Chapel vs. Internet Mormon

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Gazelam wrote:Ray,

I have only a peripheral understanding of all that went on with the September 6. That being said I think intellectuals are only cast out when they seek to take their studies and then use them to try to shape the church to fit their "educated" view.


Gaz---

I would agree with you, except that Prof. Bill Hamblin published a Church-sanctioned article which obliterated the old notion that the Hill Cumorah was located in New York. Likewise, DCP just recently stated that he thought the Jaredite submarines were complete bull. This is heresy; this is an attempt on the part of apologists to re-shape the doctrine of the Church.

If you believe that scholars should be jettisoned from the Church due to trying to "shape the church to fit their 'educated' view," then you should be mailing the Brethren, demanding for the excommunication of Daniel C. Peterson, William Hamblin, and lots of other apologists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Toscano (spellcheck) seeking to change the church's stance on women in the priesthood?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the apologists seeking to change the [C]hurch's stance on Lamanites, and the Hill Cumorah, and so on and so forth ad infinitum? I urge you to write your letter, Gaz.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Chapel vs. Internet Mormon

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Doctor Scratch wrote:DCP just recently stated that he thought the Jaredite submarines were complete bull. This is heresy

LOL. Submarines?

My son is an officer on a submarine. The Book of Mormon says nothing about submarines.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Chapel vs. Internet Mormon

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:DCP just recently stated that he thought the Jaredite submarines were complete bull. This is heresy

LOL. Submarines?

My son is an officer on a submarine. The Book of Mormon says nothing about submarines.


How, in your view, are the Jaredite "vessels" any different from submarines, practically speaking?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: Chapel vs. Internet Mormon

Post by _The Nehor »

Doctor Scratch wrote:How, in your view, are the Jaredite "vessels" any different from submarines, practically speaking?


Speaking as an ignorant layman submarines are designed to purposefully go underwater. The barges as described were designed to endure waves and brief periods of submersion presumably in roughs seas.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Post Reply