Scott Gordon: Mormons Can Believe Whatever They Want

[_DrW]

Over on MD&D, there is a thread with the following title:

You Can Believe Whatever You Want, You Just Can't Teach It

The OP (by Libs) reads as follows:

I just finished listening to Scott Gordon, John Dehlin & Rosemary Avance, participating in a discussion panel at UVU (very interesting discussion, by the way). Scott Gordon made a statement that kind of surprised me, and so I wanted to bring it here and see what you all thought about it, and how exactly this might work, in reality.

The statement was, something to the effect that you can believe whatever you want, in the church, you just cannot teach it. He further said, that you can even believe the Book of Mormon is not literal, and still be a member in good standing. I took that to mean you can believe the Book of Mormon is not literal history. This statement caught my interest because my own belief about the Book of Mormon leans in that direction. I do believe the book is inspired, but I'm not sure it is true history.

The problem I see, with holding that kind of view, and maintaining activity in the church is that, if you can hold the view, but not "teach it" (I would assume, not speak it), wouldn't that put one in a position of potentially having to lie? I was trying to remember if there was anything asked in the Temple recommend interview, about the Book of Mormon, that would cause one to have to lie, if their views were a bit unorthodox?

Comments?

Here is a link to the actual discussion:

http://www.mormondia...entry1209119207

Is this yet another evolving principle of the Gospel?

Is belief in the Book of Mormon no longer required to be considered a faithful member of the LDS Church?

If such belief is not required, then why waste so much credibility and good will insisting that the Book of Mormon is historical?

Is this where the Mopologists are trying to take the LDS Church?

If there are any Universal Unitarians out there, would you care to comment?

[_bcspace]

Not only not teach it but some things one might not want to express in Church either or it might be taken as teaching especially if you express it as truth. In that case, one might pass for a member. One might be in good standing with the Church. But one will not be in good standing with God if one settles on that non belief. Ultimately, one's salvation is between one and God, but the doctrine is that God teaches that only the LDS Church provides the saving ordinances and doctrines. One should find a different Church if one has settled on the notion that this isn't true.

Is this yet another evolving principle of the Gospel?

No. It's just another way of communicating the same principles evolved to handle the nuanced.

Is belief in the Book of Mormon no longer required to be considered a faithful member of the LDS Church?

"Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"

If such belief is not required, then why waste so much credibility and good will insisting that the Book of Mormon is historical?

The doctrine is that the Book of Mormon is historical and is wrapped up in the TR question above. If I heard that one had settled on the belief that the Book of Mormon is not as Joseph Smith and the Church report, then it would would seem unlikely that I would sign a TR for such a one.

Is this where the Mopologists are trying to take the LDS Church?

A few left-wing/Sunstone-ized ones it seems. But apologists (FAIR, MI) have virtually no influence on the Church in any direct way. Indirectly, the Church continues to move in opposite direction from the non historicity of the Book of Mormon.

So yes, if one does not believe critical doctrines, even if they don't express it, they are lying in the TR interview etc. That is why Democrats, for example, cannot be good Mormons.

[_Tarski]

That is why Democrats, for example, cannot be good Mormons.

If this were true you would be allowed to teach it.


The truth is you are just being an ideological a$$hat

[_bcspace]

That is why Democrats, for example, cannot be good Mormons.

If this were true you would be allowed to teach it.

Incorrect. "Democrat" is just a catchall that happens to work. In the Church, we merely go down this list of beliefs and make that determination.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Bcspace you condemning GAs who are Dems. And how do you avoid the pornography liveleak - which is most if not close to all the adverts on liveleak

Second, Scott Gordon. He puts on a pretense of learned but has nothing to offer. Scott Gordons statement is no different than Satan saying "You will become as the Gods".

[_krose]

Is belief in the Book of Mormon no longer required to be considered a faithful member of the LDS Church?

"Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"

If such belief is not required, then why waste so much credibility and good will insisting that the Book of Mormon is historical?

The doctrine is that the Book of Mormon is historical and is wrapped up in the TR question above. If I heard that one had settled on the belief that the Book of Mormon is not as Joseph Smith and the Church report, then it would would seem unlikely that I would sign a TR for such a one.

Can't a person who doesn't bother to get a temple license still be considered a "faithful member"?

[_krose]

That is why Democrats, for example, cannot be good Mormons.

Don't forget to include pretty much every Western European Mormon, where even most "conservatives" are to the left of US Democrats.

[_bcspace]

Bcspace you condemning GAs who are Dems.

Not necessarily. The Dems to whom you would refer typically were Dems when it was possible to be a Dem and a good Mormon.

And how do you avoid the pornography liveleak - which is most if not close to all the adverts on liveleak

I do my best to be in the world but not of the world. A lot of the adverts on strategypage.com are like that too. I never click them.

Second, Scott Gordon. He puts on a pretense of learned but has nothing to offer. Scott Gordons statement is no different than Satan saying "You will become as the Gods".

Feel free to elaborate.

That is why Democrats, for example, cannot be good Mormons.

Don't forget to include pretty much every Western European Mormon, where even most "conservatives" are to the left of US Democrats

Have no fear. I don't forget it. Being LDS then is the best thing that can happen to them for they will learn in Church that homosexuality is sin and socialism is in opposition to the Law of Consecration etc.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

I love when an American socialist condemns European socialism. LOL

[_bcspace]

I love when an American socialist condemns European socialism. LOL

I love it when someone erroneously thinks the LoC is anywhere close to Socialism. Gives me a chance to note that:

“They had all things common.” The phrase “they had all things common” ( Acts 4:32 ; see also Acts 2:44 ; 3 Nephi 26:19 ; 4 Nephi 1:3 ) is used to characterize those who lived the law of consecration in ancient times. Some have speculated that the term common suggests a type of communalism or “Christian Communism.” This interpretation is in error. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the true nature of having all things common: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts , designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo every one is steward over his own [property].” ( History of the Church, 6:37–38.)

Each stewardship is considered private property (see Reading L-4 ), and the residues and surpluses consecrated for the storehouse became the “common property of the whole church” ( D&C 82:18 ). It is referred to as the “common property” because the covenant members of the order had access to it, according to their just “wants” and “needs,” including the need to improve their stewardship (see D&C 82:17–18 ).

The word equal is frequently used in the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants: “In . . . temporal things you shall be equal” ( D&C 70:14 ); “for if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things” ( D&C 78:6 ); “appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs” ( D&C 51:3 ). The Lord gave His definition of the term equal: “And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just” ( D&C 82:17 ).

.....................

“This procedure [of providing deeds] preserved in every man the right of private ownership and management of his property. Indeed, the fundamental principle of the system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which, at his option, he could alienate [transfer], keep and operate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and life under the united order was not, and never will be, a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph himself said.

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/dc-in-200-j-l-l.asp