Is the Internet Confounding the Revision of History

[_charity]

charity's reading of that passage is certainly novel, but I agree with you that the WoW was not binding until the 1930 GHI (If I recall correctly), but even then it's not binding except as a condition for obtaining a temple recommend.

That sounds very much like taking temple blessings lightly. "Well, it's only required if you want to have any hope of going to the celestial kingdom and being with your family forever. But other than that, don't bother." Did you really mean to say that?

[_Runtu]

That sounds very much like taking temple blessings lightly. "Well, it's only required if you want to have any hope of going to the celestial kingdom and being with your family forever. But other than that, don't bother." Did you really mean to say that?

I just meant that it's not a "commandment" per se.

[_charity]

That sounds very much like taking temple blessings lightly. "Well, it's only required if you want to have any hope of going to the celestial kingdom and being with your family forever. But other than that, don't bother." Did you really mean to say that?

I just meant that it's not a "commandment" per se.

How do you determine what is a commandment and what is not? This is an interesting topic.

[_skippy the dead]

charity's reading of that passage is certainly novel, but I agree with you that the WoW was not binding until the 1930 GHI (If I recall correctly), but even then it's not binding except as a condition for obtaining a temple recommend.

That sounds very much like taking temple blessings lightly. "Well, it's only required if you want to have any hope of going to the celestial kingdom and being with your family forever. But other than that, don't bother." Did you really mean to say that?

But a temple recommend and temple attendance is not required as part of church membership. I think that this gets to the core of part of the discussion that's been going on here. You have essentially stated that members are obligated to believe what the leaders believe as part of sustaining those leaders (although you haven't responded to my request for references on that). However, I have yet to see that the church requires either this, conforming to the WoW (as it is currently defined), or holding a temple recommend in order to be a member of the church. I believe that this is related to the "big tent" theory of membership. The church seems willing to accept members that cover a spectrum of belief and behavior, so long as certain areas (related to sexual restrictions and criminal acts, preaching against church principles, etc) are avoided.

This is distinct from the upper echelon of church belief and participation, which would be a temple recommend and attendance. You seem to be conflating the two, by suggesting that the only "good" member is one that holds a recommend and marches in lockstep with the leaders. I am suggesting that until the church clears its rolls of all non-temple recommend holding adults, this is a mistaken perception. As illustrated by the church's aggressive baptism methods, it is willing to take virtually all comers.

Perhaps it goes under the precept of "It is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength." But it seems quite harsh to condemn a member's limited participation rather than appreciate that there is some spark there that compels that person to be a member in the first place.

Maybe that's just me.

[_truth dancer]

If TD is wanting to know what the leaders of the Church say, she can look up what they say! It is all on line.

I have looked at what the leaders of the LDS church say I have not found anything that supports your assertion.

If you know of something feel free to share.

If TD, or anyone else wants to know what the leaders say, and don't listen to anyone else, then there is no point in them being on a message board. The General Conference talks, the Ensigns are all one line and in print and on audio. Why both to discuss with anyone here?

Of course we listen to others... but "others" do not speak for the LDS church or define doctrine. You shared your opinion and I think it is clear that the leaders do not share perspective.

So be it.

~dancer~

[_Runtu]

How do you determine what is a commandment and what is not? This is an interesting topic.

Well, let's see. We have ten commandments, and the two great commandments. I would gather that when the Lord commands people to do something (or at least a "prophet" says He does), that qualifies as a commandment. That has never happened with the Word of Wisdom, so by nature it cannot be considered a commandment.

[_truth dancer]

D&C: 2

To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

~truth dancer~

[_charity]

But a temple recommend and temple attendance is not required as part of church membership. I think that this gets to the core of part of the discussion that's been going on here. You have essentially stated that members are obligated to believe what the leaders believe as part of sustaining those leaders (although you haven't responded to my request for references on that). However, I have yet to see that the church requires either this, conforming to the WoW (as it is currently defined), or holding a temple recommend in order to be a member of the church. I believe that this is related to the "big tent" theory of membership. The church seems willing to accept members that cover a spectrum of belief and behavior, so long as certain areas (related to sexual restrictions and criminal acts, preaching against church principles, etc) are avoided.

You can read the requirements for being baptized on page 206 of ""Preach My Gospel." There are requirements.

1. Affirm belief in God, the Father, and in Jesus as the Redeemer of the World.
2. Affirm belief in the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith.
3. Affirm belief in the past and present prophets as the Lord's annointed servants.
4. If serious sin has been committed, a person has participated in an abortion, or had a homosexual relationship, their request must be handled by a higher level authority.
5. Committ to living the law of chastity, the Word of Wisdom, the law of tithing, attending Church every week, and serving their fellow man.
6. Committ to following the Savior and keeping the commandments throughout life.

This is distinct from the upper echelon of church belief and participation, which would be a temple recommend and attendance. You seem to be conflating the two, by suggesting that the only "good" member is one that holds a recommend and marches in lockstep with the leaders. I am suggesting that until the church clears its rolls of all non-temple recommend holding adults, this is a mistaken perception. As illustrated by the church's aggressive baptism methods, it is willing to take virtually all comers.

There is no "upper echelon." All that is required to get a temple recommend is to keep the baptismal covenant. Do you believe that people make those baptismal promises without meaning it?

Perhaps it goes under the precept of "It is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength." But it seems quite harsh to condemn a member's limited participation rather than appreciate that there is some spark there that compels that person to be a member in the first place.

I said it is probably better to keep the person in church at what ever level they wish and hope they will repent and recommitt themselves to keep their baptismal promises.

[_skippy the dead]

But a temple recommend and temple attendance is not required as part of church membership. I think that this gets to the core of part of the discussion that's been going on here. You have essentially stated that members are obligated to believe what the leaders believe as part of sustaining those leaders (although you haven't responded to my request for references on that). However, I have yet to see that the church requires either this, conforming to the WoW (as it is currently defined), or holding a temple recommend in order to be a member of the church. I believe that this is related to the "big tent" theory of membership. The church seems willing to accept members that cover a spectrum of belief and behavior, so long as certain areas (related to sexual restrictions and criminal acts, preaching against church principles, etc) are avoided.

You can read the requirements for being baptized on page 206 of ""Preach My Gospel." There are requirements.

1. Affirm belief in God, the Father, and in Jesus as the Redeemer of the World.
2. Affirm belief in the restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith.
3. Affirm belief in the past and present prophets as the Lord's annointed servants.
4. If serious sin has been committed, a person has participated in an abortion, or had a homosexual relationship, their request must be handled by a higher level authority.
5. Committ to living the law of chastity, the Word of Wisdom, the law of tithing, attending Church every week, and serving their fellow man.
6. Committ to following the Savior and keeping the commandments throughout life.

I do not dispute that this is what a convert must commit to in order to be baptized. It's what happens thereafter that I'm referring to. And with the exception of certain violations of the law of chastity (and Number 4 on the list), one could fail to abide by any of the commitments made and still remain a member of the church. Nobody is going to be excommunicated for faltering on them. And I would hope that such members would be welcome by their congregations despite their choice to not follow through on those commitments.

As an aside, note that for those of us baptized at age 8, however, such commitments could not be validly made, which may lead to another aspect of the issue.

This is distinct from the upper echelon of church belief and participation, which would be a temple recommend and attendance. You seem to be conflating the two, by suggesting that the only "good" member is one that holds a recommend and marches in lockstep with the leaders. I am suggesting that until the church clears its rolls of all non-temple recommend holding adults, this is a mistaken perception. As illustrated by the church's aggressive baptism methods, it is willing to take virtually all comers.

There is no "upper echelon." All that is required to get a temple recommend is to keep the baptismal covenant. Do you believe that people make those baptismal promises without meaning it?

Yes.

And, as I mentioned above, there are those that may have been baptized as a child who could not knowingly agree to those promises, and may come to different conclusions as they mature.

Perhaps it goes under the precept of "It is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength." But it seems quite harsh to condemn a member's limited participation rather than appreciate that there is some spark there that compels that person to be a member in the first place.

I said it is probably better to keep the person in church at what ever level they wish and hope they will repent and recommitt themselves to keep their baptismal promises.

I would take it a step further and hope that they be given full fellowship in the church regardless of a hope that they repent. It could be that whatever they are doing works for them.

[_charity]

I do not dispute that this is what a convert must commit to in order to be baptized. It's what happens thereafter that I'm referring to. And with the exception of certain violations of the law of chastity (and Number 4 on the list), one could fail to abide by any of the commitments made and still remain a member of the church. Nobody is going to be excommunicated for faltering on them. And I would hope that such members would be welcome by their congregations despite their choice to not follow through on those commitments.

The only reasons I have heard for being excommunicated is being convicted of a crime, preaching apostate doctrine, participating in an abortion or violating the law of chastity. But nobody is perfect, and we all are guilty of violating some part of our baptismal covenant at times.

As an aside, note that for those of us baptized at age 8, however, such commitments could not be validly made, which may lead to another aspect of the issue.

According to God, you become accountable at age 8. You can understand the difference between right and wrong at that point. We aren't talking about the legal age to drive, or sign contracts.

This is distinct from the upper echelon of church belief and participation, which would be a temple recommend and attendance. You seem to be conflating the two, by suggesting that the only "good" member is one that holds a recommend and marches in lockstep with the leaders. I am suggesting that until the church clears its rolls of all non-temple recommend holding adults, this is a mistaken perception. As illustrated by the church's aggressive baptism methods, it is willing to take virtually all comers.

There is no "upper echelon." All that is required to get a temple recommend is to keep the baptismal covenant. Do you believe that people make those baptismal promises without meaning it?

Yes.

And, as I mentioned above, there are those that may have been baptized as a child who could not knowingly agree to those promises, and may come to different conclusions as they mature. [/quote]

People change their minds all the time. Sad, but true.

I said it is probably better to keep the person in church at what ever level they wish and hope they will repent and recommitt themselves to keep their baptismal promises.

I would take it a step further and hope that they be given full fellowship in the church regardless of a hope that they repent. It could be that whatever they are doing works for them.[/quote]

They are given whatever fellowship they want, according to what they are willing to do. I have never seen anyone denied fellowship for not being perfect.