Fundamental Mormon Claims

[_Jason Bourne]

DCP is incorrect in this case. By the same definition FAIR used to use on it's board (and may still somewhere), the LDS Church has a systematic theology.

Where can I see this systematic theology outlined succinctly? And what does FAIR have to do with it?

Some people just have a hard time imagining how continuing revelation and inspiration can fit within it, but it does.

It can fit in. It just should not overturn something that was once doctrine or taught as such. Things like the blacks did not receive the priesthood because they are born into and under the curse of Cain, polygamy being necessary for the highest degree of glory, simply de-canonizing scripture as they did with the Lectures becasue they did not really support the evolved teachings about the Godhead (nor does the Book of Mormon really but it would be tough to just dump it), down playing theological teachings about God being a man and men becoming gods,

Others, not knowing or understanding how the Church treats doctrine, have erroneously proclaimed certain things as not doctrine when they are doctrine or vice versa as an apologetic reaction to difficult questions.

Sure. Happens all the time with apologists. You do it too when you argue BY never taught Adam God as well that it was not doctrine. You really think non doctrine would be taught at the St George temple?

[_mikwut]

Dan,

Is the the ushering in of the last dispensation and the second coming of Christ in these present latter days a fundamental aspect of the church?

regards, mikwut

[_Uncle Dale]

...
de-canonizing scripture as they did with the Lectures
...

If you have the time, take a few minutes to compare the process
by which the D&C was admitted into the latter day canon in 1835,
vs how it was partially decanonized less than a century later.

I mentioned here earlier that I was taught that common consent
is a fundamental principle of Latter Day Saint religion, and that it
has always been fundamental to the eternal Plan of Salvation.

Now, I may be wrong in my views, but I think I'm right in saying
that both the "doctrine" and the "commandments" of that 1835
book of scripture were studied, discerned, prayed over, and
sustained in a rigorous application of common consent by all the
Church quorums (representing the entire body) at Kirtland.

The result was a standard works text which not only provided
guidance for the individual member ----> it also became the Law
of the Church, whereby any member could be judged following
an accusation or admission of transgression.

Again, the sustaining of this set of doctrines and covenants by
the entire body helped to insure that it was not comprised of
false teachings, policies and practices ----> that the contents
merited the description of Divine Authority and stood equal in
validity with the "stick of Ephraim" and the "stick of Judah."

Thus, in my mind at least, decanonization enacted without
common consent violates a fundamental religious principle.

UD

[_Jason Bourne]

Dr Peterson

Two questions that maybe are other threads. We will see.

1: Do theorize that BY was correct about AG? You say that you do not know what to make of it but you commented that you do not rule out that Adam is God like BY taught?

2: You say that it is a fundamental belief that Christ atoned for the transgression of Adam. You also state you accept organic evolution. Do you believe that Adam was a literal man from which we all descend? If yes how can you reconcile this with evolution. If not a literal man what does this do to the teachings about a fall, and the need for a savior?

[_Jason Bourne]

If you have the time, take a few minutes to compare the process
by which the D&C was admitted into the latter day canon in 1835,
vs how it was partially decanonized less than a century later.

I am quite familiar with it. The 1835 D&C was presented to all quorums of the Church and voted on and accepted. In 1921 the Lectures were simply removed and the reason given was that they were not on par with the revelations. Well the revelations were considered the covenant portions of the D&C and the Lectures the doctrine. The Lectures were really the first of a set of a number of planned doctrinal treatises that likely would have been added to the D&C had they ever been developed.

I mentioned here earlier that I was taught that common consent
is a fundamental principle of Latter Day Saint religion, and that it
has always been fundamental to the eternal Plan of Salvation.

I thought so.

Now, I may be wrong in my views, but I think I'm right in saying
that both the "doctrine" and the "commandments" of that 1835
book of scripture were studied, discerned, prayed over, and
sustained in a rigorous application of common consent by all the
Church quorums (representing the entire body) at Kirtland.

That would be my understanding as well.

Again, the sustaining of this set of doctrines and covenants by
the entire body helped to insure that it was not comprised of
false teachings, policies and practices ----> that the contents
merited the description of Divine Authority and stood equal in
validity with the "stick of Ephraim" and the "stick of Judah."

Thus, in my mind at least, decanonization enacted without
common consent violates a fundamental religious principle.

It would seem so, yes.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps the time has come to define what a "fundamental" is
(as in "fundamental claim") and how that definition compares
with "policy," "practice," or transitory "doctrine," subject to change.

That's pretty much what my opening post set out to do -- and, I think, to a reasonable extent, does.

I may well be wrong in thinking that the "fundamentals" of
Latter Day Saint religion were all in place 1900 years ago, and
that supplementary teachings arising since that "meridian of
time" are just that -- supplements based upon the fundamentals.

The prophethood of Joseph Smith, or the claim that Thomas Monson alone has the right in our current time to exercise all priesthood keys, could not have been fundamental to making one a Christian in the first century, but they are certainly essential to being a faithful Latter-day Saint in full communion on 2 April 2011. In A.D. 32, professing that Christ's tomb was empty was not a fundamental part of being a Christian. By A.D. 35, it was.

Or -- can we properly profess that the religion lived out and
manifested in Jesus lacked "fundamentals" added by the LDS?

I think it accurate and fair to say that the religion lived out and manifested in Jesus in first-century Palestine lacked certain fundamentals that have been revealed by Jesus to the Latter-day Saints since then. That is rather the point of the concept of continuous revelation.

You will presumably disagree. But the question addressed by this thread regards the content of my faith and that of my fellow believers, not the content of yours.

It just should not overturn something that was once doctrine or taught as such. Things like the blacks did not receive the priesthood because they are born into and under the curse of Cain,

A speculative explanation (for a now-discontinued practice) that was never, in my view, official doctrine, and may or may not be false.

polygamy being necessary for the highest degree of glory,

Fairly common nineteenth-century hortatory rhetoric, but I don't believe that it was ever official doctrine -- except in the very basic but also very important sense that nobody who hopes for exaltation in the highest kingdom can lightly disregard the expressed will of God (which, for half of the nineteenth century, seems to have entailed entry into plural marriage).

simply de-canonizing scripture as they did with the Lectures becasue they did not really support the evolved teachings about the Godhead

I don't believe that the Lectures on Faith were ever scripture. It was, in my judgment, good to remove them from the Doctrine and Covenants so as to make that unambiguously clear.

(nor does the Book of Mormon really but it would be tough to just dump it),

I reject the insinuation that anybody of any significance in the Church is even tempted to "dump" the Book of Mormon.

I'm perfectly content with the Book of Mormon's teaching about God.

down playing theological teachings about God being a man and men becoming gods,

President Hinckley chose, for good or ill, wisely or not, not to expound that doctrine on at least two occasions for the national news media. But the Church still teaches the doctrine.

[quote="mikwut"]Is the the ushering in of the last dispensation and the second coming of Christ in these present latter days a fundamental aspect of the church?/quote]
I would say so, yes--and is embodied in the Church's very name.

My list in the opening post doesn't purport to be exhaustive.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Two questions that maybe are other threads. We will see.

They're really, on the whole, topics for other threads. And, at least between now and 5 June, I won't participate in such other threads. I simply don't have the time.

1: Do theorize that BY was correct about AG? You say that you do not know what to make of it but you commented that you do not rule out that Adam is God like BY taught?

I think it's possible that he was right. I won't publicly comment on Adam-God to any extent because I don't have a clear bead on it, but I will go so far as to publicly say four things:

1. I cannot reconcile usual understandings of Adam-God with my understanding of Mormon doctrine.

2. I'm pretty sure that usual understandings of Adam-God have misunderstood what Brigham Young was saying. (Perhaps he himself didn't fully understand it.)

3. I have, thus far, been unable to work out a significantly superior understanding. Which is to say that I think I see problems in the usual reading, but can't see a totally satisfactory way of fixing them.

4. That said, and much to my surprise (at least partially because I was absolutely not seeking it), I have received a strong and unmistakable testimony of something, at least, in Brigham Young's Adam-God teaching. I just don't quite understand what it is. I know that something is there, but can't articulate it.

2: You say that it is a fundamental belief that Christ atoned for the transgression of Adam. You also state you accept organic evolution. Do you believe that Adam was a literal man from which we all descend?

I'm undecided. I believe, though some might differ, that Latter-day Saints need to believe that Adam was a literal historical figure. That we all biologically descend from him, I'm not altogether certain. I don't see, at the moment, how that could be. Unless, of course, the chronology is seriously wrong -- which is a very real possibility. Even then, though, I'm not sure that we're all his biological offspring.

If yes how can you reconcile this with evolution. If not a literal man what does this do to the teachings about a fall, and the need for a savior?

See above.

These are, for me, important and very interesting questions, but unresolved. For me, there are a number of more pressing issues, to quite a number of which I believe myself to have satisfying solutions.

[_Jason Bourne]

It just should not overturn something that was once doctrine or taught as such. Things like the blacks did not receive the priesthood because they are born into and under the curse of Cain,

A speculative explanation (for a now-discontinued practice) that was never, in my view, official doctrine, and may or may not be false.

Well we could debate that but this thread is not the place. I bring it up because of what I perceive as a problematic thing when attempting to define even fundamental LDS doctrine. The curse of Cain reasoning was certainly taught from the pulpit, publishes in LDS manuals and even referred to in an FP statement. Yet you now would view it as speculative and in your opinion not doctrine. Did you ever view it as such? I did when taught it as a teen by leaders and teachers.

polygamy being necessary for the highest degree of glory,

Fairly common nineteenth-century hortatory rhetoric, but I don't believe that it was ever official doctrine -- except in the very basic but also very important sense that nobody who hopes for exaltation in the highest kingdom can lightly disregard the expressed will of God (which, for half of the nineteenth century, seems to have entailed entry into plural marriage)

Once again that is nice for you and me now but the prophet of God and the LDS apostles taught it from the pulpit and stated it as doctrinal. Fundamentalist Mormons still view it as such. How can you are I know simply dismiss it. How then can one determine at any point in time is really doctrine. Your comments seem to me to highlight this problem? Should we just stick with the simple correlated basics which is what the Church seems to want today? Can we honestly then just ignore the rest?

simply de-canonizing scripture as they did with the Lectures becasue they did not really support the evolved teachings about the Godhead

I don't believe that the Lectures on Faith were ever scripture. It was, in my judgment, good to remove them from the Doctrine and Covenants so as to make that unambiguously clear.

Again you might think that but the historical record surely disputes this. Those who accepted the 1835 D&C accepted the Lectures as the doctrine of their newest addition to Canon. How you can get around the historical record on this I do not know.

(nor does the Book of Mormon really but it would be tough to just dump it),

I reject the insinuation that anybody of any significance in the Church is even tempted to "dump" the Book of Mormon.

I agree. I was trying to by witty and cute.

I'm perfectly content with the Book of Mormon's teaching about God.

Me too. But they lack much of what came after 1838 in any clear and succinct way. One could use the Book of Mormon just like they do the New Testament to argue for against creedal trinitarianism.

down playing theological teachings about God being a man and men becoming gods,

President Hinckley chose, for good or ill, wisely or not, not to expound that doctrine on at least two occasions for the national news media. But the Church still teaches the doctrine.

Yes but seemingly less and less.

[_Doctor Scratch]

As far as defenses of fundamental doctrines go, the simple fact that an argument is being made, or that a defense is being mounted, doesn't, in and of itself, demonstrate that the subject of the argument or the item being defended is fundamental to Mormonism.

True, but you've said that the purpose of LDS apologetics is to defend the fundamental claims of Mormonism, and it's very difficult to see how the articles I cited are engaged in this task.

One might well argue that Professor X's argument regarding the reception-date of Doctrine and Covenants NNN is mistaken (or valid), without regarding the issue as fundamental. One might defend a bridge, or destroy a bridge, not because the bridge itself is of fundamental intrinsic importance but because it is an important entry-point to Y. One might simply want to express one's opinion, or to clarify something. There are any number of subjects that might be deemed worth writing about without their being fundamental. Not every disagreement is a war for survival between the forces of Good and Evil.

The problem here is that you've staked out what you believe to be some Fundamental Mormon Claims. This is a problem because you've also described LDS apologetics as attempting to defend this Fundamental Mormon Claims:

More accurately: Mormon apologetics is entirely concerned with demonstrating, to both Latter-day Saints and fair-minded non-Latter-day Saints, that there is enough evidence for the fundamental truth claims of the Church to provide a reasonable basis for exercising faith in them, and that arguments leveled against fundamental truth-claims of the Church do not prove the falsehood of those claims.

(emphasis mine)

So, unless you can lay out a clear case that the bulk of the articles in the Review are actually engaged with what you've described here, I think you'll need to at last concede that Mopologetics is really doing something else. (Which, incidentally, is exactly what I've been saying for a few years now.) It is truly remarkable that you gave this rather convoluted response in lieu of a list of FARMS articles that actually do try to defend what you've described as Fundamental Mormon Claims. Normally, when you want to make a point about the Review, you rattle off a long string of articles in an effort to back up your claims. Here, though---nothing. Just some sputtering about bridges and "entry-points." (Again: I'm really baffled at how the critique of "Fun for Family Night" fits with *anything* that you said.)

[_Jason Bourne]

1: Do theorize that BY was correct about AG? You say that you do not know what to make of it but you commented that you do not rule out that Adam is God like BY taught?

I think it's possible that he was right. I won't publicly comment on Adam-God to any extent because I don't have a clear bead on it, but I will go so far as to publicly say four things:

1. I cannot reconcile usual understandings of Adam-God with my understanding of Mormon doctrine.

2. I'm pretty sure that usual understandings of Adam-God have misunderstood what Brigham Young was saying. (Perhaps he himself didn't fully understand it.)

3. I have, thus far, been unable to work out a significantly superior understanding. Which is to say that I think I see problems in the usual reading, but can't see a totally satisfactory way of fixing them.

4. That said, and much to my surprise (at least partially because I was absolutely not seeking it), I have received a strong and unmistakable testimony of something, at least, in Brigham Young's Adam-God teaching. I just don't quite understand what it is. I know that something is there, but can't articulate it.

Well this is certainly intriguing! But be careful friend. AG belief if proclaimed publicly can get you into trouble! And I know one apologist that I am sure you know (but he will remain nameless) that told me he concluded the BY was correct about AG. And honestly, when you take the ideas of eternal progression, becoming gods and creating our own worlds the doctrine can actually make sense. So I see how BY got there and why some may think he was correct.

2: You say that it is a fundamental belief that Christ atoned for the transgression of Adam. You also state you accept organic evolution. Do you believe that Adam was a literal man from which we all descend?

I'm undecided. I believe, though some might differ, that Latter-day Saints need to believe that Adam was a literal historical figure. That we all biologically descend from him, I'm not altogether certain. I don't see, at the moment, how that could be. Unless, of course, the chronology is seriously wrong -- which is a very real possibility. Even then, though, I'm not sure that we're all his biological offspring.

If yes how can you reconcile this with evolution. If not a literal man what does this do to the teachings about a fall, and the need for a savior?

See above.

These are, for me, important and very interesting questions, but unresolved. For me, there are a number of more pressing issues, to quite a number of which I believe myself to have satisfying solutions.

Well someday I would love to discuss them with you. Maybe I was too literal in my LDS TBM days. But lack of a real Adam and a real fall seems very problematic for the need for a savior as well as other fundamental Christian and then LDS ideas and doctrines.

Too bad you do not have time. Best wishes in your up and coming travels.