What are the fundamental teachings of the Church?

[_Bazooka]

On the "Bible Verse By Verse" thread I had this exchange with Maklelan....

Bazooka wrote:
It occurs to me that the doctrine of a Global, Literal flood taking place circa 2,300BCE is a pretty fundamental teaching of the Church.

Maklelan wrote:
I would disagree, and I know many, many Latter-day Saints who would do the same.

Bazooka wrote:
Your lack of acceptance of this teaching seems to place you somewhere on the spectrum of apostasy (and I'm really not trying to offend or deliberately provoke you).
Is there some official clarity on what does or what does not constitute something that is so fundamental that not believing it marks you out as an apostate?

Maklelan wrote:
The temple recommend interview questions regarding belief are really the only thing that spring to mind, but even there it's a grey area.

...which I think is worthy of exploring further in a thread of its own.

Based on my exchange with maklelan I have a number of points/questions.

1. How can a faiths fundamental teachings be so unclear as to be considered a grey area? This is the benchmark for deciding wether or not a member should be considered apostate, worthy of a temple recommend etc. Ones eternal salvation depends on a belief and an understanding...actually, i think the order of that should be reversed...an understanding of and then belief in the faiths fundamental teachings. If they cannot be clearly identified, how is one supposed to know if one believes them or not? How can Church leaders judge a member an apostate on the basis that they don't believe in 'X' when it is unknown wether 'X' is a fundamental teaching or not?

2. In the temple recommend interview one confirms that one sustains the General Authorities of the Church. How can one sustain these General Authorities yet not believe some of what they teach? For instance, Jeffrey R. Holland has publicly taught the flood was a literal event that subsided when the continents were separated circa 2,300BCE. Can one still believe he is an Apostle of God if he clearly believes something you believe to be myth/legend/amalgam of traditional tales?

3. Is the literalness and timing of the Great Flood something that one needs to believe, in order to believe in the literalness and timing of other key events and people? For instance, if you disbelieve the literal flood story do you then become skeptical about the literalness of Adam and Eve etc?

[_maklelan]

1. How can a faiths fundamental teachings be so unclear as to be considered a grey area?

If you're specifically asking about a fundamental teaching the rejection of which qualifies one as apostate, I believe so.

This is the benchmark for deciding wether or not a member should be considered apostate, worthy of a temple recommend etc.

Well, the issue is that the temple recommend standard is fixed and known. The "apostate" category is a different story, and agreement with the "fundamental teachings" is third story altogether.

Ones eternal salvation depends on a belief and an understanding...actually, i think the order of that should be reversed...an understanding of and then belief in the faiths fundamental teachings.

No, that would be an orthodoxic soteriology, but Mormonism preaches orthopraxy.

If they cannot be clearly identified, how is one supposed to know if one believes them or not?

Whose business is it?

How can Church leaders judge a member an apostate on the basis that they don't believe in 'X' when it is unknown wether 'X' is a fundamental teaching or not?

That's not how Church leaders identify apostasy. The Handbook of Instructions lists the things that indicate apostasy. Haven't you read it?

2. In the temple recommend interview one confirms that one sustains the General Authorities of the Church. How can one sustain these General Authorities yet not believe some of what they teach? For instance, Jeffrey R. Holland has publicly taught the flood was a literal event that subsided when the continents were separated circa 2,300BCE. Can one still believe he is an Apostle of God if he clearly believes something you believe to be myth/legend/amalgam of traditional tales?

Why not?

3. Is the literalness and timing of the Great Flood something that one needs to believe, in order to believe in the literalness and timing of other key events and people? For instance, if you disbelieve the literal flood story do you then become skeptical about the literalness of Adam and Eve etc?

I would imagine that's different for everyone.

[_Bazooka]

If they cannot be clearly identified, how is one supposed to know if one believes them or not?

Whose business is it?

I would think that the leadership of the faith group has the responsibility for setting out what that faith groups fundamental teachings/beliefs are, wouldn't you agree?

How can Church leaders judge a member an apostate on the basis that they don't believe in 'X' when it is unknown wether 'X' is a fundamental teaching or not?

That's not how Church leaders identify apostasy. The Handbook of Instructions lists the things that indicate apostasy. Haven't you read it?

Does the Handbook (in terms of apostasy based on fundamental teachings/beliefs rather than behavioural issues such as criminal acts etc) say anything different to this statement from LDS.org?

Apostasy
When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.

In terms of "the principles of the gospel" which, if I turned away from them I would be in apostasy, where can I find them in sufficient clarity that I may make a decision about wether or not I am comfortable subscribing to them?

2. In the temple recommend interview one confirms that one sustains the General Authorities of the Church. How can one sustain these General Authorities yet not believe some of what they teach? For instance, Jeffrey R. Holland has publicly taught the flood was a literal event that subsided when the continents were separated circa 2,300BCE. Can one still believe he is an Apostle of God if he clearly believes something you believe to be myth/legend/amalgam of traditional tales?

Why not?

Well, because he is teaching something you do not believe is true.

3. Is the literalness and timing of the Great Flood something that one needs to believe, in order to believe in the literalness and timing of other key events and people? For instance, if you disbelieve the literal flood story do you then become skeptical about the literalness of Adam and Eve etc?

I would imagine that's different for everyone.

Which is the point.

[_SteelHead]

Obey the leader.

Pay your tithing.

[_subgenius]

Obey the leader.

Pay your tithing.

A church being a theocracy surprises you? Or are you merely dispensing revelation?
Perhaps you can name that church, or any organization of people, that promotes unity through anarchy and a doctrine of self-centeredness?

nevertheless,
a significant aspect of the LDS church is the Gift of the Holy Ghost
How do you resolve the notion that every member is given the power from God to discern the truth of anything "the leader" may say, teach, or direct?
This seems to be a blatant contradiction of what your "summary" above.

[Guest]

I would think that the leadership of the faith group has the responsibility for setting out what that faith groups fundamental teachings/beliefs are, wouldn't you agree?

My questions wasn't whether or not the leadership has the responsibility to lay out the group's fundamental beliefs, my question was whose business it was to determine whether or not a member believes enough of the fundamental teachings? If the temple recommend interview isn't enough, then who else has the responsibility to measure the appropriateness of a member's set of beliefs?

Does the Handbook (in terms of apostasy based on fundamental teachings/beliefs rather than behavioural issues such as criminal acts etc) say anything different to this statement from LDS.org?

Apostasy
When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.

In terms of "the principles of the gospel" which, if I turned away from them I would be in apostasy, where can I find them in sufficient clarity that I may make a decision about wether or not I am comfortable subscribing to them?

You're trying to insist that there should be a systematic theology within Mormonism, but that's simply not how it works. Systematic theology is forced upon religions, and I don't think it ever really finds a lot of success. Religious communities prioritize those principles that are expedient to them contemporaneously. No religious community maintains a comprehensive set of beliefs to which they are perpetually compared and by which they are perpetually measured. That's not how ideology works, as much as you think it should be.

Well, because he is teaching something you do not believe is true.

And why does that preclude me believing he is an apostle?

Which is the point.

No, that's certainly not the point you appear to me to be making. You're implying that beliefs are all contingent upon and determinative of other beliefs, which is simply not the way the Church functions.

[_SteelHead]

The holy ghost? Right.....

Said gift of discernment isn't worth boo. Didn't help gbh discern that Hoffman was selling forgeries.

Can you link to any studies that would affirm that the discernment via the holy ghost actually works?

Hey sub! I hava a magical holy ghost powered rock. When I put it in a hat it glows and I can see burried treasure on it. For a small fee I could come see if there is any burried treasure in your vicinity.

Wait! What is this? I just checked in my garage and your holy ghost is hanging out with my invisible pink unicorn. How crazy cool is that?

[_Bazooka]

My questions wasn't whether or not the leadership has the responsibility to lay out the group's fundamental beliefs, my question was whose business it was to determine whether or not a member believes enough of the fundamental teachings? If the temple recommend interview isn't enough, then who else has the responsibility to measure the appropriateness of a member's set of beliefs?

Isn't that putting the 'cart before the horse' so to speak?
On the basis that there needs to be a standard set of beliefs alongside which a members can be compared first, before deciding who has the responsibility of making that comparison.

You're trying to insist that there should be a systematic theology within Mormonism, but that's simply not how it works. Systematic theology is forced upon religions, and I don't think it ever really finds a lot of success. Religious communities prioritize those principles that are expedient to them contemporaneously. No religious community maintains a comprehensive set of beliefs to which they are perpetually compared and by which they are perpetually measured. That's not how ideology works, as much as you think it should be.

I don't think I am doing that. The Church states that one can be considered an apostate if ones beliefs don't match up to the fundamental teachings of the Chruch. The Church says that, not me. All I'm asking of the organisation that made that statement to clarify what is and what isn't classed as a fundamental teaching so that I may understand wether or not I'm in our out of the tent. In fact, the person who has the responsibility to measure my level of belief is also very much in need of that clarification because otherwise, the whole worthiness measurement system of the Church is based on human vagaries and will therefore be massively inconsistent.

Well, because he is teaching something you do not believe is true.

And why does that preclude me believing he is an apostle?

It doesn't, I suppose. But if his status as an Apostle isn't based on believing what he says, what's the point in having Apostles in the first place?

Which is the point.

No, that's certainly not the point you appear to me to be making. You're implying that beliefs are all contingent upon and determinative of other beliefs, which is simply not the way the Church functions.

Nope. I'm saying the Church states that it's fundamental teachings are a benchmark for measuring worthiness. I'm simply trying to get a clear answer on what that organisation means, specifically, when it states "fundamental teachings". It seems very disconcerting that it's such a hard thing to establish.

[_moksha]

If the Church had endorsed the idea that the Earth was flat, would I be out of line with rejecting the idea? To embrace this orthodoxy would mean that I was not being true to what measure of geographical knowledge I had accumulated outside of the Church.

The spiritual essence of Christianity embodied in the Church is sufficient and added peculiarities and prejudices seem like they should be optional. Who really wants to be part of something which can be summed up by pay, pray and obey. To me, Mormonism represents something far loftier.

[_maklelan]

Isn't that putting the 'cart before the horse' so to speak?
On the basis that there needs to be a standard set of beliefs alongside which a members can be compared first, before deciding who has the responsibility of making that comparison.

There is not and need not be any such standard set of beliefs. I asked who would have that responsibility to highlight that there is no such responsibility in the Church, as well as no such standard set of beliefs.

I don't think I am doing that. The Church states that one can be considered an apostate if ones beliefs don't match up to the fundamental teachings of the Chruch.

No, you're conflating a generic and broad definition with a specific and discrete administrative action. Again, you're trying to systematize the Church, which is not how it works. You can't proof text this.

The Church says that, not me.

No, you are saying that when the Church gives a broad and generic of the word "apostasy" on its website, it must be held to that specific definition in its separate administrative activities in relation to actionable apostasy.

All I'm asking of the organisation that made that statement to clarify what is and what isn't classed as a fundamental teaching so that I may understand wether or not I'm in our out of the tent.

And the answer is that it's relative. Always has been and always will be.

In fact, the person who has the responsibility to measure my level of belief is also very much in need of that clarification because otherwise, the whole worthiness measurement system of the Church is based on human vagaries and will therefore be massively inconsistent.

That kind of brittle dogmatism is what leads to fundamentalism. I realize that it makes it a whole lot easier to judge and condemn the Church, but it's just not how the Church has ever functioned. You should know this.

It doesn't, I suppose. But if his status as an Apostle isn't based on believing what he says, what's the point in having Apostles in the first place?

Yeah, and if not every word of the Bible is completely inerrant, why do we even have a Bible? This is religious fundamentalism, Bazooka. I understand that criticizing the Church is a whole lot easier when we can make it fit inside these tiny little convenient boxes of idiotic dogmas, but that's not how the Church has ever functioned. I suggest abandoning this silly rhetorical campaign.

Nope. I'm saying the Church states that it's fundamental teachings are a benchmark for measuring worthiness.

Where does it state that? Note, I'm not asking you to show me a completely different statement from which you inferred the above, I'm asking you to show me where the Church specifically says anything about a benchmark for measuring worthiness.

I'm simply trying to get a clear answer on what that organisation means, specifically, when it states "fundamental teachings". It seems very disconcerting that it's such a hard thing to establish.

I think it's a great thing that there's no such checklist. Of course, I'm not trying to get the Church painted into a corner.