What is this doctrine?

[_Fortigurn]

From the current lesson manual for Priesthood and Relief Society:

But that doesn't mean it's doctrine, or taught by the Church, or that LDS members are supposed to believe it, does it?

If it's taught in a work published by the Church, it's doctrine. That's the way it's been essentially since Correlation and described in the link in my siggy.......

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Ok, I have an LDS member on another forum telling me almost the exact opposite, but since he's an Internet Mormon this is to be expected. Your view makes much more sense. The part about the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency doesn't mean that the doctrine has to be explicitly stated by one of them and then submitted to approval by the entire Quorum, or does it? And which 'official declarations and proclamations' do I look in to find LDS doctrine?

[_bcspace]

Ok, I have an LDS member on another forum telling me almost the exact opposite, but since he's an Internet Mormon this is to be expected. Your view makes much more sense.

LOL! Aren't I an "internet Mormon"? Show him the link in my siggy. While the link is just from last year, this is what the Church has taught internally for decades.

The part about the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency doesn't mean that the doctrine has to be explicitly stated by one of them and then submitted to approval by the entire Quorum, or does it?

I think all they have to do is sign off on a publication and I think they even delegate and trust a few of them to do it. If the prophet recieves some major revelation, he will present it to both bodies.

And which 'official declarations and proclamations' do I look in to find LDS doctrine?

Any thing published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Scriptures, manuals, magazines, pamphlets, web sites etc. They can be found on the Church's web site LDS.org.

[_Fortigurn]

Thanks BC. And no, you're not an Internet Mormon in my experience. You're more of a Chapel Mormon.

[_bcspace]

Thanks BC. And no, you're not an Internet Mormon in my experience. You're more of a Chapel Mormon.

LOL! So how many years do I have to post on sites like this to qualify as an "internet Mormon"?

Seriously, I've yet to notice any real distinctions along those lines. Many of whom you'd label "chapel Mormons" are quite up to date on issues dicussed on forums like this. If you want to make distictions, your best bet is to distinguish between generations and TBM's vs Jacks or TBM's vs. Gospel Hobbiests.

[_Fortigurn]

Thanks BC. And no, you're not an Internet Mormon in my experience. You're more of a Chapel Mormon.

LOL! So how many years do I have to post on sites like this to qualify as an "internet Mormon"?

As has been explained many times before, your presence on the Internet does not qualify you as an 'Internet Mormon', nor does your presence on sites such as these.

Seriously, I've yet to notice any real distinctions along those lines.

I have noted with interest that this concept of Internet LDS and Chapel LDS is widely accepted within the LDS Church. There's an LDS blog here which says exactly the same thing, using the term 'Elite Religion' and 'Common Religion'. Very importantly, there's a detailed article here written by a self-described 'Ex-Chapel Mormon' who explains how their experience with 'Internet Mormons' caused them to lose their LDS faith completely, since the 'Internet Mormons' consistently contradicted what they had been taught for years was 'official' church doctrine and practice.

Let's have a look at what one of those LDS links says:

In particular, it seems that the development of FARMS and other intellectual centers of Mormon studies has resulted in a division of sorts. On the one hand, Mormon studies scholars believe in a world where the Nephites lived in a tiny section of Central America, where the Hill Cumorah is somewhere in Guatemala, where the flood was a localized event, and where Joseph Smith was polygamous and polyandrous. On the other hand, most church members believe in a world where the Lehites covered the Americas, the Hill Cumorah is in New York, the flood was worldwide, and Joseph’s polygamy is never mentioned. Common church members believe the prophet is never wrong; elites believe the prophet may have opinions that are incorrect (such as men on the moon). Common members believe that women have never held any type of priesthood; elites point out early church instances of women wielding priesthood or quasi-priesthood authority. And so forth. Bridging this chasm are church leaders, who sometimes seem to favor one worldview, and sometimes another.

It seems the more that FARMS scholars research and write, the more that apologists respond to anti-Mormon attacks, the further away they move from the common beliefs that constitute and underlie lived Mormonism for most actual members. Is the church dividing in two? Is FARMS Mormonism even the same religion as the one I hear in Sacrament Meeting? And, if not, why? — and who, if anyone, needs to change?

You can see that they describe the situation exactly as 'Dr Shades'. There's more:

What are we to believe when a FARMS scholar states that evidence shows that the limited geography hypothesis is correct, but a general authority refers to all Native Americans as Lamanites? Is the elite religion correct, or the common religion?

And, until (if and when) ideas like the limited geography hypothesis are endorsed by church leaders, can we (should we?) hold these out to non-members as being indicative of church belief? When someone asks me “what do Mormons think of Native Americans?”, should I refer them to Sorenson’s articles on limited geography, or to the Book of Mormon introduction?

And here's his telling conclusion:

At the end, I remain confused as to how I’m supposed to assemble this little structure called church beliefs. My daily and weekly contact is with members who have simple common-religion beliefs; blogging puts me in contact with many elite-religion advocates. I would like to use the scholarly insights of elite religion to bolster my everyday beliefs. But I must confess that I haven’t found any easy ways to blend these with the weekly church attendance and church doctrine as I try to live it as a member.

The net result is that many LDS members don't know what to believe, and end up believing what they choose to, recognizing that other LDS are going to hold completely different views. They are unable to tell non-LDS members exactly what the 'official' church view is supposed to be:

* 'Incidently, I am in the habit, when asked “What do Mormons believe about X?” of saying “Some Mormons believe _____, while others believe ______.” I do this with almost every topic, to one extent or another.'

* 'It seems the only honest response to this kind of questions is ‘I have little idea what other Mormons believe. My guess is they think all kinds of things. But I believe this…'

* 'When the little kids come home from school or primary with any number of fuzzy ideas, we explain that some families believe one thing, others another. Some act one way, others another. We tell them that is okay, but in our family we believe this…'

* 'John H. makes a key point: in the past the common and the scholarly perpectives on Mormon history and doctrine have been effectively compartmentalized. That is now breaking down–illustrated nicely by the LDS.org links to FARMS and DNA articles. What does this portend for the future?'

* 'Even if someone is more innocently asking what Mormons believe, an informed Mormon should both say what most Mormons socially believe and what the actual position of the church is'

* 'Hmm…I don’t know any Mormons so well informed that they could honestly say what most Mormons socially believe'

* 'A cursory review of the history in the Mauss books and comments on this site, moreover, might suggest that the ‘actual position of the church’ is quite often difficult to discern'

* 'If I compare what Joseph seemed to believe about Book of Mormon geography with the FARMS notion of limited geography, I see a pretty big gap'

* 'In short, I think the divide between “elite” and “common” in the church could become a real problem, but it does not have to'

* 'Some people feel that “Common Religion” / “Chapel Mormonism” exists merely because many members are ill-informed. But if you read the scriptures and listen to the prophets’ voice, then it becomes clear that God is a member of the “Common Religion” and is a Chapel Mormon. See why the distinction bodes ill?'

* 'I’d question the idea that the scriptures are the purview of “chapel Mormons” when it seems like “internet Mormons” are the ones reading, studying and discussing them'

* 'I’m just struck by the impression that, if I read a FARMS review, it seems to be speaking an entirely different language than that I hear from most church members'

Now that's just a sample of the 155 comments. It's clear that this phenomenon is recognized by many LDS members. There's another LDS article about it here, and here an LDS describes himself as 'an early 30ish suburbanite Internet Mormon who dabbles in chapel Mormonism--thinking of getting even more active-by-the-way'.

This is a very serious issue in the LDS community at present, and it's one of the reasons why I can't really rely on any LDS member on the Internet to tell me what's real and what's not real in terms of 'official' LDS doctrine and practice. They're simply in no position to know, especially if they're not a GA.

But when it's time to criticize the church, I think you have to stick with what the church teaches, and not go off on things that are not doctrine. If you want to judge the church on the internet, then you should be discussing the official website of the church.

The problem is that even LDS members find it extremely difficult to determine what is, and what isn't, 'what the Church teaches'. Here are some additional links on Internet Mormonism/Chapel Mormonism, to demonstrate how widely recognized it is both in the LDS Church and without:

* Mormon Neo-orthodoxy: history, details, and useful Mormon and non-Mormon links regarding the issue

* Blogdescension, or, the Natural Effect of the Gathering of the Internet Mormons: an LDS article on the effect of Internet Mormonism

* Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy:A Crisis Theology: a book describing the gradual neo-orthodoxy emerging in the LDS Church over the last 20 years or so

* Internet Mormonism: Threat or Opportunity?: an LDS blog article concerning Internet Mormonism

* USA Today: news article describing the impact of Internet Mormonism on the LDS Church, with LDS statements:

And while the work of the BYU apologists — the term means those who speak or write in defense of something — remains confined largely to intellectual circles, some church members who have always understood themselves in light of Mormon teachings about the people known as Lamanites are suffering identity crises.

"It's very difficult. It is almost traumatizing," said Jose Aloayza, a Midvale attorney who likened facing this new reality to staring into a spiritual abyss.

"It's that serious, that real," said Aloayza, a Peruvian native born into the church and still a member. "I'm almost here feeling I need an apology. Our prophets should have known better. That's the feeling I get."

In a telephone interview from his Canberra office, Southerton said that keeping up with the rapidly growing body of work in genetic research made it difficult for him to finish the book while also keeping it up-to-date with critics and apologists and those in between all seeking to reframe the Book of Mormon in light of DNA research.

In particular, he's tried to keep up with FARMS articles, which he said are "completely at loggerheads with what the church leaders are teaching."

There's no doubt that this is a hot topic in the LDS Church, and has been becoming increasingly hot over the last 20 years.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I have been presented with the following quotes. I would prefer responses from LDS members.

I’m sure some here would deem me not worthy of the title “LDS member,” but I hope you won’t mind if I take a crack at this:

* What doctrine is being referred to here?

The reverse end of the LDS concept of deification.

* Is this a revelation?

Ultimately, Dunno. I think it is. If not, it tends to be a logical conclusion of the rather robust LDS concept of deification (and G-d the Father having a glorified anthropomorphic body).

* Is this taught by the LDS Church?

I believe it is vaguely presented in the Gospel Principles manual, but I wouldn’t quote me on that. I mentioned the Snow couplet in my GD class in the Singles ward I sometimes attend a little over a year ago, and it didn’t seem to garner any gasps or wholesale apostasy.

[_Fortigurn]

Thanks for your response Doctor Steuss.

[_bcspace]

As has been explained many times before, your presence on the Internet does not qualify you as an 'Internet Mormon', nor does your presence on sites such as these.

Oh I think I certainly qualify for the adjective.

I have noted with interest that this concept of Internet LDS and Chapel LDS is widely accepted within the LDS Church. There's an LDS blog here which says exactly the same thing, using the term 'Elite Religion' and 'Common Religion'. Very importantly, there's a detailed article here written by a self-described 'Ex-Chapel Mormon' who explains how their experience with 'Internet Mormons' caused them to lose their LDS faith completely, since the 'Internet Mormons' consistently contradicted what they had been taught for years was 'official' church doctrine and practice.

Fringe sites not associated with the Church.

In particular, it seems that the development of FARMS and other intellectual centers of Mormon studies has resulted in a division of sorts. On the one hand, Mormon studies scholars believe in a world where the Nephites lived in a tiny section of Central America, where the Hill Cumorah is somewhere in Guatemala, where the flood was a localized event, and where Joseph Smith was polygamous and polyandrous.

Sounds like most of the people in my ward including myself. Now am I an internet Mormon? What about the rest of my ward? lol

On the other hand, most church members believe in a world where the Lehites covered the Americas, the Hill Cumorah is in New York, the flood was worldwide, and Joseph’s polygamy is never mentioned. Common church members believe the prophet is never wrong; elites believe the prophet may have opinions that are incorrect (such as men on the moon). Common members believe that women have never held any type of priesthood; elites point out early church instances of women wielding priesthood or quasi-priesthood authority. And so forth. Bridging this chasm are church leaders, who sometimes seem to favor one worldview, and sometimes another.

Sounds more like a previous generation.

This change is not doctrinally significant, it simply reflects new information and more realistic possibilites.

It seems the more that FARMS scholars research and write, the more that apologists respond to anti-Mormon attacks, the further away they move from the common beliefs that constitute and underlie lived Mormonism for most actual members.

I suppose it depends on the apologist.

Is the church dividing in two? Is FARMS Mormonism even the same religion as the one I hear in Sacrament Meeting? And, if not, why? — and who, if anyone, needs to change?

The Gospel Hobbiest needs to change certainly. But those have been around since the Church's inception.

The net result is that many LDS members don't know what to believe, and end up believing what they choose to, recognizing that other LDS are going to hold completely different views. They are unable to tell non-LDS members exactly what the 'official' church view is supposed to be:

I don't see why not. What is and is not LDS doctrine is clearly defined.

Now that's just a sample of the 155 comments. It's clear that this phenomenon is recognized by many LDS members.

The solution for them would be to ground themselves in doctrine. There is plenty of leeway there for new theories and ideas and little conflict because that which isn't doctrine is easily identified.

And while the work of the BYU apologists — the term means those who speak or write in defense of something — remains confined largely to intellectual circles, some church members who have always understood themselves in light of Mormon teachings about the people known as Lamanites are suffering identity crises.

"It's very difficult. It is almost traumatizing," said Jose Aloayza, a Midvale attorney who likened facing this new reality to staring into a spiritual abyss.

"It's that serious, that real," said Aloayza, a Peruvian native born into the church and still a member. "I'm almost here feeling I need an apology. Our prophets should have known better. That's the feeling I get."

The poor fellow has not been paying attention.

In a telephone interview from his Canberra office, Southerton said that keeping up with the rapidly growing body of work in genetic research made it difficult for him to finish the book while also keeping it up-to-date with critics and apologists and those in between all seeking to reframe the Book of Mormon in light of DNA research.

I've yet to see any conclusive DNA evidence that goes against the Church.

In particular, he's tried to keep up with FARMS articles, which he said are "completely at loggerheads with what the church leaders are teaching."

From what I've seen, it seems more like Southerton and Murphy have a harder time keeping up with DNA research.

[_ludwigm]

... and described in the link in my siggy.......

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

I have a definition for the winning numbers of the next lottery.

It is equivalent with Your favourite "definition", which was written by an unnamed member of an undefined department of The Church.

Not every number is a winning one.
The winning numbers of the next lottery reside in the multiplication table and in the set of prime numbers.
Without divine inspiration.

Please
1. List the winning numbers of the next lottery
2. Determine if 2473 is one of them

[_bcspace]

I have a definition for the winning numbers of the next lottery.

It is equivalent with Your favourite "definition", which was written by an unnamed member of an undefined department of The Church.

If the Church puts it's stamp of approval on it (by publication), what does it matter?