What are the fundamental teachings of the Church?

[_malkie]

Obey the leader.

Pay your tithing.

And keep quiet, unless you repeat only orthodox ideas.

[_Bazooka]

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.

Why would I need to show you a completely different statement to the one already provided? Don't you like the one I gave? Does it not suit what you want to say?
"When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy."

That is what the Church states when one searches for a definition of "Apostasy".
All I'm asking is for clarification of what is and what isn't classed as a gospel 'principle'.

From your perspective, a belief in a literal global flood taking place circa 2,300BCE is not included as a principle. Nor is a belief in everything an Apostle teaches from the pulpit in his capacity as an Apostle.

[_subgenius]

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?

hmm..."studies" being the only validation for your belief system? the whole DoI notion of 'self-evident' is lost on you...you are not so easily fooled by those who perpetuate the myth of "pursuing happiness" and "created equal"...or do you have a "study" that affirms these blatantly "odd" claims?
Nevertheless...it seems you are claiming that "studies" have a flawless, 100% correct track record while the HG must surely be unreliable because of some forgeries...regardless of the countless (yes, countless) other times the HG may have delivered (not to even mention that the HG is not an unconditional situation...but hey, why should actual doctrine and teachings get in the way of your "studied" opinion?).

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.

Ironically, in the 19th century you would not be that unique in America. Divining rods are still used today, quite effectively, by well diggers....perhaps that is a profession for you?

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?

Not that impressive...a lot of people have a garage.

[_maklelan]

Why would I need to show you a completely different statement to the one already provided? Don't you like the one I gave? Does it not suit what you want to say?

The one you gave is not from the Church, it's an inference you're drawing from a completely different statement from the Church.

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

That is what the Church states when one searches for a definition of "Apostasy".

And that's different from your statement above.

All I'm asking is for clarification of what is and what isn't classed as a gospel 'principle'.

No, you're asking for what is and isn't classed as a foundational principle, the rejection of which brings Church disciplinary action. That's quite different from "a gospel principle."

From your perspective, a belief in a literal global flood taking place circa 2,300BCE is not included as a principle. Nor is a belief in everything an Apostle teaches from the pulpit in his capacity as an Apostle.

You're massaging and manipulating your claims with every post. I thought you respected my intelligence more than this. I don't see any value to my continued participation in this thread.

[_Bazooka]

No, you're asking for what is and isn't classed as a foundational principle, the rejection of which brings Church disciplinary action.

Yep, and so far you haven't been able to clarify what is or what isn't officially classed as a foundational principle, such that disbelieving it would result in disciplinary action. From what we have seen in the past and what we now see in the past, the basis for disciplinary cases being taken for matters of belief seems to be public oration of said belief. In other words, one would not be disciplined for apostasy for believing (to use a current theme) women should be ordained to the Priesthood. Only when one starts posting that on social media does it then become actionable.

That's quite different from "a gospel principle."

A foundational principle is different from a gospel principle? Really?

From your perspective, a belief in a literal global flood taking place circa 2,300BCE is not included as a principle. Nor is a belief in everything an Apostle teaches from the pulpit in his capacity as an Apostle.

You're massaging and manipulating your claims with every post. I thought you respected my intelligence more than this. I don't see any value to my continued participation in this thread.

Clearly that's up to you, but I note that (along with so far being unable to demonstrate the core/principle/foundational teachings/principles one must needs believe to be considered not in apostasy) you haven't addressed the topic that one can disbelieve an Apostles words and claims and yet not be considered in apostasy unless, it seems, one states that disbelief on some form of social media outlet. The one thing you did mention was the belief statements part of the temple recommend interview. However, they are only a measure of a members worthiness for entering the temple, and members not seeking to enter the temple do not get asked those questions. One could be in a position of not believing some of those statements and still be considered a member of the Church.

Also, one can believe something dramatically different to what is espoused in the Church and still pass those questions.
Let me give an example:
Q. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
A. Yes. (But in reality I don't believe the First Vision was an actual event, I believe it was simply a dream by Joseph and I don't think the plates existed I think that part was made up and that the Book of Mormon is simply inspired fiction).

So, the "restoration of the gospel in these latter days" may well be a foundational principle or teaching, but does that mean one has to believe it happened exactly the way the Church teaches it happened or not?