Close Topic Options

Mormons Don't Ask That - Page 2

I am speaking specifically of teaching in the church, especially in a teaching calling. Even if I have a great theory that seems logical and correct, I should not teach it in Gospel Doctrine, Seminary, Institute, Priesthood/Relief Society, or over the pulpit in sacrament meeting UNLESS it is completely harmonious with the teachings of the prophets and the scriptures. On issues where the Lord has seen fit to remain silent, it is not ours to speculate publicly. For example, I would never presume to teach in a Gospel Doctrine class where I think the dinosaurs work into the timeline of the history of the world. Elder Nelson said in the footnotes of one of his conference talks that this is an unknown. It is healthy to conjecture as long as a clear line is drawn between doctrines of God and philosophies of men.

That Dont Mormons

Okay, let's suppose then that I'm teaching Institute (where as we know, we study the scriptures in more depht) and one of the topics is about Plural Marriage. It is harmonious with the teachings of the prophets and with the scriptures and it is Church doctrine although the living are not practising it.
In your opinion then I can teach why Plural Marriage was instituted (the real reason and not because of lack of men during the Pioneers time), I could then quote several Prophets talking about it, I could also as a history background mention how many wives Brigham Young and Joseph Smith had and that Celestial Marriage is Plural Marriage and that we will be ask to live this law once more one day and so on....

Now, don't take me wrong. I have NO problem with this doctrine and its history. If Plural Marriage as an example, is part of Church doctrine, then why cannot be taught in Church?.

Edited: LDS_forever on 6th Dec, 2004 - 2:38pm

Mormons Don't Ask That Studies Doctrine Mormon

A few more quotes:

Apostle Dallin Oaks:

Never Criticize Past or Present Church Leaders - Even if it is the Truth

I've heard of the analogy that we are at war with Satan for the souls of man. Liken that to the was with terrorism. Would we go up to Osama bin laden and divulge some important secret information about the U.S. That would give hin an upper hand? Of cource not. Even though the info we give is true, it is not right to give it. So, if we uncover some events in our own Church History that are less than faith promoting, ( and there are some ) we should not divulge this to the world.

Early church leaders denied polygamy was a part of our religion for a time when it really was. This may have been due to warnings from the Lord of what would happen if the world found out. It was a time to remain silent. There are some gospel principles that we do not share with children because they would not understand. We don't teach 6 year olds about the temple endowment. Milk before meat.

Page 2 That Dont Mormons

Gaucho, thank you so much for taking the time to give those quotes. Just a couple of thoughts....

First of all, I personally do not agree with Elder Oaks and his opinion about not talking about certain issues of the Church and its leaders that he may consider not faith promoting. I think we need to separate facts from criticism. I'm talking about facts, I'm not talking about whether Brigham Young was a sicko for having 30 something wives, I understand the reason for no critisism, now it does not mean I would portrait him as monogamous just for the sake of trying to make him look 'good' in the eyes of the world or new Church members. It may be from little importance how many wives he had for instance, but nobody can denied that as fact and to portrait him otherwise, is a lie.

Elder Oaks says...

I do not fully understand what is his concept about criticism. It seems to me that when we give facts about the Church and its history that are not well known, they perceive it as criticism, when in reality, you're not judging, but just stating facts. What's wrong with that?. Also it concerns me that we have just to accept whatever thing a leader do without having to say anything negative about it, we are not in a sect. People are chose by common consent and if someone is doing something that is not supposed to do, oh heck I would say something about it!.

I understand what you mean by your last statement, and I do agree with it. My whole point is that there are certain things that you 'cannot' ask in Church, that you will get the 'looks' from leaders and other members...almost like if its a taboo.
Could I get a link from that same talk of Elder Oaks?. Thanks.

That Dont Mormons

LDS,

I don't have a link to the full talk only that it was given in 1985 at BYU. I don't think the church is hiding the truth from us like some Anti's claim, I think they realize that some events may not be faith promoting and there is no point in us focusing on them. True testimony is based on a spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost, not from specific events from church history. So, if we have that witness, no amount of questionable events or teachings from the past should affect us. The problem is, many people, even long time members of the church do not have a spiritually based testimony. They may have leaned on the testimonies of parents or others without fully learning for themselves. So when they learn some of these less than faith promoting truths, or half truths, they do not have a foundation to fall back on and lose their testimony. That is why we shouldn't go about digging up these stories and sharing them because to some it will be more than they can take.

A famous mormon instuctor and author, Grant Palmer is scheduled to meet in a church court next week over the contents of his book. I haven't read it but it apparently is critical of some of the events in the church's past and how the official church teaching is not really what happened. I personally wouldn't ex him if I were his stake pres but what he has written falls under what Pres. Packer and Elder Oaks are referring to when they say these things shouldn't be brought up. Digging through our history to come up with things that may be damaging to the church. For what purpose? To destroy the testimonies of some? It's like being at war and deserting to the other side, treason.

https://www.supportgrantpalmer2.netfirms.com/

Mormons Don't Ask That

I do not fully agree with that because if someone goes around saying that Plural Marriage for instance is Church doctrine, the answer you will get is that 'we do not have anything to do with it anymore, it's behind us' almost like it was a mistake from the past. I do agree with what you said about how people may lose their testimonies because of it...and then a question always comes to my mind: Isn't better for them to learn these things from the Church or other caring LDS members than to find out in the most uncomfortable of the circumsntances and by the wrong people?. Are you aware of how disappointed, angry and sad a person may become because of it?. I have felt it when I found out about the blacks and Priesthood a couple of years later after I joined the Church...not because of the doctrine itself but because nobody have told me about it before...I felt betrayed.
That's the feeling I'm afraid of our members may have when we do not talk about these things....

Mormons Don't That - Page 2

I never said that plural marriage cannot be taught in the Church. In fact, we discuss the subject openly in some of my institute classes. The doctrinal reasons for plural marriage are clear in both the Bible and the revelations of the Restoration.

However, we CANNOT teach in Institute speculative doctrines which have no clear source in inspired revelation. Relating to plural marriage, these speculations might include any of the following:
-Whether or not Christ actually married in mortality, to whom, and whether she was the only one.
-How many wives our Heavenly Father may or may not have.
-When plural marriage will be commanded again.

There are no subjects of the Gospel that I feel should be ignored, although some are guarded by sacred covenants that must be honored. The problem is when people start taking the Gospel of Christ and juxtaposing it with the Gospel of Some Magazine Article I Once Read, or the Gospel of What My Dad's High Priest Group Leader Thought. I am simply asking that every doctrine construed as doctrine be actual, documentable doctrine.

I would further suggest that if some idea or theory is only mentioned once, in the Journal of Discourses for example, it may not be as accurate or important as the messages the prophets of our generation to us specifically. The Lord is [/I]still[I]extending the Saints' understanding, including the Prophets'. Brigham Young did not know some of the mysteries that Gordon B. Hinckley comprehends, because they were reserved for this time. If we ignore the plain teachings of a living prophet, proudly using lesser-known references from dead prophets to support our own agendas, we will not be held blameless as stewards or as saints.

Mormons Don't That Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 2

These are my feelings on the topic:

1. The Church wants the 'Basics' taught in it's public settings so that there are no misconceptions, errors or broken testimonies.

2. There will be times when members will ask questions outside of the normal 'Basic' doctrines and to this I often answer; "There is an answer for that and if you search through the scriptures and words of the Prophets you will find it". If I am in the mood then I will also give them a head start by mentioning which chapter or Prophet to look up.

2b. My other approach to that is based on what they already know. For instance if the person wants to understand Plural Marriage because they read some Anti tracks then I will sit with them in a corner and try and explain it as best I can so that they get more of the Truth and less of the Anti stuff. I usually try to show it from the point of view of the scriptures rather than emphasize what the early leaders did. I do not feel it is correct to simply say to one asking... 'Sorry, I cannot talk about that because it is not part of our Basic beliefs'. If it is that the person really wants a better understanding of it then I will only answer what is act based on discernment. I believe if someone is genuinely seeking after knowledge I should not turn them away, but I try to give the spiritual reason more than the historic overtones.

3. I believe the most appropriate time to share the deeper Doctrines is with our families, especially when we think they are ready. I feel this is much better than waiting for someone else to teach it to them. I liken it to how many approach sex education. Parents are afraid to talk about the 'secrets' of it all (sex) and their kids end up learning about it from their school buddy's porn magazine or the school teacher's opinions, etc. At home we are the Patriarchs and Matriarchs and have a right to revelation as to how much we can discuss with our own prosperity based on their readiness.

4. Of course I will never reveal anything about the Temple and I think Boyd K. Packer's 'The Holy Temple' reveals more than I would ever say, so I normally refer them to that book with the added statement... "Everything in the temple is based on the Scriptures, especially the Old Testament and Pearl of Great Price".

5. I feel one of the great problems with teaching doctrine, is this... knowing how to teach it and how to handle questions. Since no one is a professional teacher in the Church you sometimes get the words of men mingled with scripture, hence the emphasis is to just read what the designated Church Book says. I have found that personal experience on any given topic lightens up any class so we are not constantly like robots learning the same thing over and over and we can then relate it to practical daily actions. Trinidad is a good example of this. Sharing stories about what happened to a Prophet on a farm in Utah or other Americanized topics (for want of a better word) just does not relate to Trinidadians. However, relating it to something on their level opens their eyes greatly, especially object lessons. I have found that most times RMs can handle both sides better than most as they are accustomed to the constant barrage of questions, but this is not always the case.

6. I feel the deepest doctrine is learnt from doing it - what the Lord has said that is... for instance, I can't tell you the amount of times I have seen people spew Doctrines of worlds on end, but could not move themselves to visit the sick and weary. What is the point? They really do not understand the Gospel or either they willfully choose not to abide by it. Now this is just personal observation, but I have found that the most Christ-like people I have ever met are the least to bring up or talk about deep doctrines. They spend so much time in the doing phase that they rarely worry about things they cannot reach unless it is specifically asked for a reason of greater enlightenment. Salvation comes in the doing and then are the mysteries opend to us. It is a promise from the Lord. If we do the things that He asks He will reveal all the mysteries to us since the Lord would that all His Children were prophets.

7. Lastly, I am greatful for all the times that I did ask what could be considered a 'Deep Doctrine Question' and the leader / teacher did not say 'Don't ask that' and because of that I was able to step 'up' and seek the knowledge for myself.