What is Mormon Doctrine?
Charney Hoffmann
outlining the Church's stance on birth control. I had no trouble
finding quotes from Church Leaders on birth control, but I faced quite
a challenge combining everything I found into a unified whole.
On one hand, I found statements from people like Joseph Fielding Smith
and Bruce R. McConkie declaring birth control to be a scourge and a
greate evil. "Saints" could hardly be called such if they "curtailed"
the birth of their children. One the other hand, I found statements
from more recent leaders that seemed more tolerant of birth control as
a means of family planning.
I asked my professor what quotes I could consider doctrine, to which
he replied "I think you know the answer to that." He then referred me
to a scripture with which I was already familiar: And whatsoever they
shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture,
shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be
the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of
God unto salvation. D&C 68: 4
I don't mean to be critical of the scripture or the professor who used
it, but I emphatically disagree that it provides any clarity
whatsoever to someone wanting to know what is considered doctrine.
Does anyone else have any method or standard they use to determine
what is doctrine?
Charney Hoffmann
Scott Marquardt
>I don't mean to be critical of the scripture or the professor who used
>it, but I emphatically disagree that it provides any clarity
>whatsoever to someone wanting to know what is considered doctrine.
>Does anyone else have any method or standard they use to determine
>what is doctrine?
No. But many companies like to have vague policies and procedures,
precisely so that management can at any time assert prerogatives without
the limits that are imposed by clearly defined policy.
If you haven't told the employees what they have a right to expect, you can
do anything you want.
Isn't that somewhat in keeping with the Mormon view of prophetic
leadership?
- Scott
John S. Colton
[snip]
>I don't mean to be critical of the scripture or the professor who used
>it, but I emphatically disagree that it provides any clarity
>whatsoever to someone wanting to know what is considered doctrine.
>Does anyone else have any method or standard they use to determine
>what is doctrine?
I agree that his answer was a bit of a cop-out.
It's an interesting question, and relates closely to my recent
comments in another thread.
I did a search on lds.org for "What is doctrine", to see if there had
been any discussion of this topic in church magazines or manuals. One
interesting hit that popped up was lesson 4 from Teaching, No Greater
Call, entitled, "Teach the Doctrine". Let me quote some of the lesson.
___begin TNGC___
"When I drink from a spring I like to get the water where it comes out
of the ground, not down the stream after the cattle have waded in
it... I appreciate other people’s interpretation, but when it comes
to the gospel we ought to be acquainted with what the Lord says"
(address to religious educators, 13 Apr. 1973; quoted by J. Richard
Clarke in Conference Report, Oct. 1982, 19; or Ensign, Nov. 1982, 15).
* To what sources should we turn to help those we teach "be acquainted
with what the Lord says"? (Answers should include the scriptures and
the teachings of latter-day prophets.)
[snip]
Emphasize that we can ensure that we are teaching correct doctrine by
being consistent with the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day
prophets.
___end TNGC___
So doctrine = scriptures and teachings of latter-day prophets.
But does this mean that everything taught by latter-day prophets is
necessarily correct doctrine? I address this in my other post, but the
answer is clearly (to me) "No". And I'm quite sure that the
prophets/apostles would agree with me.
But perhaps the distinction should be made between "an LDS doctrine",
and "true doctrine". Inasmuch as something is taught by the church, it
can be considered an LDS doctrine. In your example, it was clearly an
LDS doctrine for a time that birth control should not be used. Such is
clearly not an LDS doctrine now. I would venture to suggest that the
counsel against using "artificial birth control" was not a true
doctrine, but rather the opinions of leaders at the time. In fact, I
don't think the leaders who spoke out against birth control even
claimed, "This has been a revelation from God"; rather they implied,
"It seems obvious that this is the case". Obvious to them, perhaps,
but not obvious to current church leaders.
As far as your paper was concerned, perhaps a better phrase would have
been "LDS *policy* on birth control", rather than "LDS *doctrine* on
birth control. The policy question is easily answered. In fact, here's
the current church policy as outlined in the CHI:
"Birth Control -- It is the privilege of married couples who are able
to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of
God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision
as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely
intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the
Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.
Married couples also should understand that sexual relations within
marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of
procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening
emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife."
Presumably one could have found previous versions of the church's
handbook, and could have tracked changes in the official birth control
policy through the years.
Anyway, just to summarize-- it is fair to call LDS policies
"doctrines" inasmuch as they are things taught by the church. However,
that doesn't mean that they are necessarily true, which I think is
what you're asking about. See my other recent post for my opinions on
when/how we should expect teachings by church leaders to be true.
John
*****
John's new usenet motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath:
but grievous words stir up anger." --Prov. 15:1
*****
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
> Does anyone else have any method or standard they use to
> determine what is doctrine?
>
I like to think of doctrine as an archery target. The bulls-eye is
pure doctrine and each ring outside of that gets further and further
away, and therefore less reliable as doctrine. With that in mind,
consider the following:
Bulls-eye: Standard Works, properly interpreted.
1st Ring: Doctrinal statements issued over the signatures
of the 1st Prexy and/or Qot12.
2nd Ring: Certain quasi-canonical works. _Jesus the Christ_,
for example.
3rd Ring: Conference talks, Church publications, etc.,
especially since they started reviewing them
for doctrinal accuracy.
4th Ring: Ditto, but from before they started reviewing,
Books by general authorities, especially those
written before they became General Authorities
(for example, _Mormon Doctrine_)
5th Ring: Dusty old quotes from ancient Church publications
(read: _Journal of Discourses_)
6th Ring: Folk Mormonism. Not really doctrine, but you can
find enough Mormons who believe it anyway to
consider it normative.
Anything else: Off the target.
One final consideration - the law of witnesses is also applicable.
IMHO, the more times we hear the same thing from the pulpit, in Church
magazines, in books by General Authorities, etc., the closer it moves
to the doctrinal bulls-eye.
bestRegards,
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Guy R. Briggs | * * * FREE AUCTION TRAINING CLASS * * * |
| | Sell more on eBAY! Locate product sources! |
| netzach@ | More money! Free Auction Profit Toolkit! |
| GeoCities.com | http://www.auctiontrainer.com/seller/guyb |
+---------------------+--------------------------------------------+
Robert Perkins
wrote:
>
>Isn't that somewhat in keeping with the Mormon view of prophetic
>leadership?
No.
Rob
Robert Perkins
simple.spam.b...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
>As far as your paper was concerned, perhaps a better phrase would have
>been "LDS *policy* on birth control", rather than "LDS *doctrine* on
>birth control. The policy question is easily answered.
I had a Biology 100 course at BYU, one of the mega-sections held in
the JS Building auditorium. Part of the curriculum for the section of
that course diverted for a bit to talk about just this subject; I
guess that discussing cellular meiosis and reproduction in general had
triggered questions in the past about Church policy. By the time I had
the class, the discussion was just part of the lecture. (It wasn't on
the tests.)
Years ago, before "the Pill" and before there were any contraceptive
methods other than sheepskin condoms, and before any birth control
other than abortion by the equivalent of a sterilized coat hanger,
(please pay attention to that distinction; I think it's important) and
before any method of detecting pregnancy other than folklore and a
swelling middle, the church policy on birth control and contraception
was simple: The answer was no, and the instructions given to the
stakes about church policy in that regard reflected that.
Then, through showing us several editions of the General Handbook of
Instructions through the '60's, '70's, and '80's, the Bio 100 teacher
showed that the wording of the policies softened, while communicating
essentially the same message, until finally we get the quote John
Colton provided, from the CHI.
Two noteworthy things have happened in the last 30-40 years, in my
opinion. One, the practice of medicine, especially reproductive
medicine (gynecology and obstetrics and the like), has drastically
improved. Two, the Church has grown dramatically past the boundaries
of the American West, to the point where there are far more Mormons
outside old Deseret than there are within.
My opinion is that the policies have changed their tone and wording
for at least two reasons. One, contraceptives have changed, tracking
with the drastic improvement in reproductive medicine in general.
Therefore there is little or no health risk related to the use of
hormonal or prophylactic contraception.
Two, culture, especially culture in the Church, has changed as
membership grows in places where it is socially and economically
detrimental (as opposed to just being socially detrimental; Mormons
are used to that) to have a family size bounded only by the number of
children a woman's body can produce.
So, the first apparent doctrine I could draw out of examining Church
policies over the years WRT contraception is that the Lord doesn't
want His people subjecting themselves to society's medical
experimentation. This is largely a "Word of Wisdom" type doctrine,
IMO. The deal here is not to ingest dangerous and unproven stuff.
The second apparent doctrine I think is there is that the Church must
be flexible enough to persist through changing conditions.
The third doctrine I find is that the Lord directs his servants to say
and do things without them necessarily knowing why. Since I can think
of several other reasons for avoiding oldtime contraceptives besides
the idea that it simply displeases God, I suppose that Church leaders
may receive revelation directing them to tell Church members
something, and the leaders do so, but they suggest their own
understanding as to why that might be so. Our own hindsight into any
issue will suggest other reasons. The fact of their incomplete
understanding or ignorance of the reasons for a divine instruction
doesn't nullify the commandments of God.
Just some thoughts bright and early this morning.
Rob
GLOBARR
In <upm0umb...@news.supernews.com>
(John S. Colton)
<simple.spam.b...@bloch.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
>
>
O'Barr comments:
Great post! Thank you for your information and insights.
*********
In <upmvnni...@news.supernews.com>
Robert Perkins <rob_p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
O'Barr comments:
An excellent post! I appreciated your thoughts!
***************
In <upm0qmm...@news.supernews.com>
(Guy R. Briggs) <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
> <snip> . . .
> I like to think of doctrine as an archery target. The
>bulls-eye is pure doctrine and each ring outside of that gets
>further and further away, and therefore less reliable as
>doctrine. With that in mind, consider the following:
>
> Bulls-eye: Standard Works, properly interpreted.
>
> 1st Ring: Doctrinal statements issued over the signatures
> of the 1st Prexy and/or Qot12.
>
> 2nd Ring: . . . .
>
<snip>
>
> Anything else: Off the target.
>
> One final consideration - the law of witnesses is also
>applicable. IMHO, the more times we hear the same thing from
>the pulpit, in Church magazines, in books by General
>Authorities, etc., the closer it moves to the doctrinal
>bulls-eye.
O'Barr comments:
In general, your approach is good.
It might be wise, however, to clarify the differences
between doctrine or truth (eternal principles)
from policy or administration or goals. In some cases,
they might be the same, but often they are not. I
would also consider the possibility that what we should do or
believe, at any one time, can only be that stated by the
present living prophet! Depending on what you wanted to say
above, you might therefore want to re-order what you have
posted.
But in general, most of the time, the Lord lets us each
individually decide what is correct. We cannot grow and
become like Him unless the majority of the thinking and
decision making remains with each individual! This is very
important, and part of the truth of the church! Brigham Young
was very clear on this, that no one was to believe him simply
because he said it. We must come to know these things for
ourselves!
Also, if everyone promises not to say I said it, let me
give you some of my opinions. I know that the Lord had to
reveal to the Church the law of plural marriage, for all
things had to be restored in these the latter days. And so it
was, no matter how short it was, or how difficult, it had to
be, so that we would have the keys. And for celestial like
beings, this law could reasonably be righteously lived.
But this law could not be righteously lived by the majority
in our land. It is therefore my belief that the Lord was
simultaneously requiring us to live this law, while at the
same time he was insuring that this law would not become the
law of the land. And thus, all was accomplished that was
best. The keys were restored, but American culture was
maintained as it would be best for the majority.
So what was the truth? There was a time when it depended
on who you were, and whether you were in or out of the church.
There was a time when God was definitely inspiring the more
righteous in the church to live this law. But outside this
church, at the same time, I believe God was encouraging others
to fulfill acts that would eventually make it impossible for
this law to be lived. And this latter effort is what we must
now abide by, for the present time!
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com>
John E. Taylor
"Guy R. Briggs" <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in message
news:upm0qmm...@news.supernews.com...
> charney_c...@yahoo.com (Charney Hoffmann) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Does anyone else have any method or standard they use to
> > determine what is doctrine?
> >
> I like to think of doctrine as an archery target. The bulls-eye is
> pure doctrine and each ring outside of that gets further and further
> away, and therefore less reliable as doctrine. With that in mind,
> consider the following:
>
> Bulls-eye: Standard Works, properly interpreted.
>
Just one small comment here about your "archery target."
I have also used this analogy over the years.
It's particular effective in SS classes to get people thinking about where
they have placed their trust.
However, I would suggest what you state as the Bulls-eye is actually the 1st
Ring.
The Bulls-eye is exactly what the original poster's teacher point him to.
It is the personal revelation from the Lord, providing guidance for your
life and confirming that what you are considering is truth.
As a church community, we have accepted in common the standard works as our
doctrinal base. It, along with official intepretation and application via
our accepted leadership, is the most we can "impose" upon one another as
being "Mormon Doctrine."
But as an individual, I must accept what I personally experience from God
above all else. I can't impose that upon anyone else, but that has be my
bulls-eye.
John T.
Bruce Walton
> With that in mind,
>consider the following:
> 2nd Ring: Certain quasi-canonical works. _Jesus the Christ_,
> for example.
>
> 3rd Ring: Conference talks, Church publications, etc.,
> especially since they started reviewing them
> for doctrinal accuracy.
I really like this approach. Thanks for sharing it. The only two rings I
might nit pick are 2 & 3.
I agree that the set of "quasi-canonical" works are vital. I usually set
those to be the "Missionary Gospel Library" (Jesus the Christ, Articles of
Faith, True Restored, Marvelous Work and a Wonder, and Gospel Principles
because the Church high recommends these titles to be brought by every
missionary) plus a few others. But I don't know if I would put them
slightly ahead of the current conference issue... But again, it's a nit
pick.
One additional nit pick is Church Publications. I would add "current
Church publications". I currently have an instructor who loves to use
older manuals and manuals from other classes. He is not teaching incorrect
principles, but the tone of his lessons is slightly off from where the
class's actual manual would lead.
Bruce Walton walt...@yahoo.com
http://www.bagheraonline.net/bruce
Charney Hoffmann
> No. But many companies like to have vague policies and procedures,
> precisely so that management can at any time assert prerogatives without
> the limits that are imposed by clearly defined policy.
>
> If you haven't told the employees what they have a right to expect, you can
> do anything you want.
The Church's reluctance to clearly establish every particular doctrine
or policy does NOT allow them to be arbitrary as you've suggested. It
allows members a greater degree of freedom in determining what is
right and wrong for themselves.
An example is the Word of Wisdom. The church specifically prohibits
only a few substances which are known to be addictive and harmful. It
allows us to extract a principle of health and encourages us to apply
it in our lives. The Church doesn't specifically prohibit colas, for
example, because the benefit of being cola-free doesn't offset the
harm done in over-regimenting our spirituality. The tacit approval of
substances not specifically forbidden doesn't allows the MEMBERS, not
the Church, to do whatever they want.
If members had more to gain from governing themselves on the matter of
tobacco than they have by blindly obeying a rule, I'm certain the
Church would have no prohibition against tobacco.
Charney Hoffmann
David Bowie
: charney_c...@yahoo.com (Charney Hoffmann) wrote:
: > Does anyone else have any method or standard they use to
: > determine what is doctrine?
: I like to think of doctrine as an archery target. The bulls-eye is
: pure doctrine and each ring outside of that gets further and further
: away, and therefore less reliable as doctrine. With that in mind,
: consider the following:
My method is even more restrictive. (AFAIK, i'm the most restrictive of
anyone on this ng as far as what i consider doctrinally reliable, but i can
think of at least two steps further extreme than me.) It has two levels:
1. Doctrinally reliable and correct: (a) The canonical scriptures and
(b) those items which have been unanimously accepted by the FP and
Qot12, and accepted as doctrinally binding by the body of the
church in conference assembled.
2. Everything else is speculation.
Not, BTW, that whereas Guy referred to the law of witnesses, for me the
scale above easily trumps witnesses--no matter how many people may agree
with Bruce R. McConkie that Moses was translated, the scriptures say that he
died (as Mark E. Peterson, another member of the Qot12, pointed out), and so
that trumps McConkie and others who promote the translated Moses idea.
<snip>
David, happy to stand with Harold B. Lee on this one
--
David Bowie http://pmpkn.net/lx
Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.
John S. Colton
[snip]
>Not, BTW, that whereas Guy referred to the law of witnesses, for me the
>scale above easily trumps witnesses--no matter how many people may agree
>with Bruce R. McConkie that Moses was translated, the scriptures say that he
>died (as Mark E. Peterson, another member of the Qot12, pointed out), and so
>that trumps McConkie and others who promote the translated Moses idea.
What do you do when scriptures seem to contradict themselves?
In this discussion, for example, Alma 45:19 seems to say that Moses
and Alma both, did not die as normal men but were instead "taken up by
the Spirit".
Since we believe the Bible to be the word of God only "as far as it is
translated correctly", the passage in Alma would seem to me to trump
the passage in Deut.
But there's certainly other examples of apparent scriptural
contradiction.
David Bowie
: On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 17:44:55 -0000, David Bowie wrote:
: [snip]
: >Note, BTW, that whereas Guy referred to the law of witnesses, for me
: >the scale above easily trumps witnesses--no matter how many people
: >may agree with Bruce R. McConkie that Moses was translated, the
: >scriptures say that he died (as Mark E. Peterson, another member of
: >the Qot12, pointed out), and so that trumps McConkie and others who
: >promote the translated Moses idea.
: What do you do when scriptures seem to contradict themselves?
: In this discussion, for example, Alma 45:19 seems to say that Moses
: and Alma both, did not die as normal men but were instead "taken up
: by the Spirit".
: Since we believe the Bible to be the word of God only "as far as it
: is translated correctly", the passage in Alma would seem to me to
: trump the passage in Deut.
: But there's certainly other examples of apparent scriptural
: contradiction.
True--that's where the unspoken fact of the Spirit's input comes in.
Note, though, that Alma 45:19 is ambiguous about Alma--it says that it's
reporting what people said happened, and not reporting it as something that
necessarily happened.
That said, i don't see how people saying Alma was "taken up by the Spirit,
or buried by the hand of the Lord, as was Moses" really means Moses was
translated. It seems to me to be saying that Moses was buried by the hand of
the Lord, as Deuteronomy 34:6 says.
David, who notes the issue's actually a very important one
John S. Colton
[snip]
>: But there's certainly other examples of apparent scriptural
>: contradiction.
>
>True--that's where the unspoken fact of the Spirit's input comes in.
That is certainly true.
It seems to me that non-canonical teaching of the church might also be
a reasonable tie-breaker. For example, the April 1998 Ensign had an
article on Moses, in which it was stated that he was translated rather
than died. Now, you and I both don't accept the Ensign as canonical,
but it is a semi-official church publication (although AFAIK it
doesn't go through the correlation committee).
Slightly more official, yet still not canonical, is the "Translated
Beings" Topical Guide entry, and the "Moses" Bible Dictionary entry,
which both refer to Moses as having been translated.
>Note, though, that Alma 45:19 is ambiguous about Alma--it says that it's
>reporting what people said happened, and not reporting it as something that
>necessarily happened.
Just to elaborate more on this particular issue, even though it has
little to do with the thread title...
It seems like the same argument can go for the case of Moses. The
language might be stronger than in Alma, but if Deut says that he was
buried by the Lord in a place that no one knows, then the implication
is certainly that it's only something that people speculated about--
there was no direct knowledge.
>That said, i don't see how people saying Alma was "taken up by the Spirit,
>or buried by the hand of the Lord, as was Moses" really means Moses was
>translated. It seems to me to be saying that Moses was buried by the hand of
>the Lord, as Deuteronomy 34:6 says.
>
>David, who notes the issue's actually a very important one
The language is actually not too different than the language
describing the City of Enoch in Moses 7: "God received it up into his
own bosom". Or D&C 8425: "Therefore, he took Moses out of their
midst...".
More compelling to me, and the reason why I'm a believer that Moses
was in fact translated, is his appearance with Elijah on the Mount of
Transfiguration. My opinion matches the B.D. in this passage: "From
this event, which occurred before the resurrection of Jesus, we
understand that Moses was a translated being, and had not died as
reported in Deut. 34 (Alma 45: 19). It was necessary that he be
translated, in order to have a body of flesh and bones at the time of
the transfiguration, since the resurrection had not yet taken place.
Had he been a spirit only, he could not have performed the work on the
mount of giving the keys to the mortal Peter, James, and John (cf. D&C
129)."
I don't see a coherent way to get around that last sentence, within
the standard LDS theology.
Not going to lose my testimony over this one, though, should I be
wrong.
Craig Olson
>
<snip>
>
> My method is even more restrictive. (AFAIK, i'm the most restrictive of
> anyone on this ng as far as what i consider doctrinally reliable, but i can
> think of at least two steps further extreme than me.) It has two levels:
>
> 1. Doctrinally reliable and correct: (a) The canonical scriptures and
> (b) those items which have been unanimously accepted by the FP and
> Qot12, and accepted as doctrinally binding by the body of the
> church in conference assembled.
>
> 2. Everything else is speculation.
>
While it might surprise some, I am in complete agreement with David on this.
I see a dramatic difference between Mormon Doctrine and Mormon Belief. We may,
as the AoF states "believe all things, we hope all things ..." but we do not
make doctrine out of all those things.
Craig
GLOBARR
"Guy R. Briggs" <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote...
: charney_c...@yahoo.com (Charney Hoffmann)
wrote:
: > Does anyone else have any method or standard
: > they use to determine what is doctrine?
: I like to think of doctrine as an archery
: target. The bulls-eye is pure doctrine and each
: ring outside of that gets further and further
: away, and therefore less reliable as doctrine.
: With that in mind, consider the following:
Bowie wrote:
My method is even more restrictive. (AFAIK, i'm
the most restrictive of anyone on this ng as far as
what i consider doctrinally reliable, but i can
think of at least two steps further extreme than
me.) It has two levels:
1. Doctrinally reliable and correct: (a) The
canonical scriptures and (b) those items which have
been unanimously accepted by the FP and Qot12, and
accepted as doctrinally binding by the body of the
church in conference assembled.
2. Everything else is speculation.
<deletes>
O'Barr comments:
Your thoughts are good. But didn't anyone hear
what Brigham Young said?
Let us try again. If you want to know the
official doctrine of the Church, only the living
prophet can say what it is! If the living prophet
says it is the canonized scriptures, then so it is!
If he says it includes the previously accepted FP
statements, then so it is. If he says it includes
his own statements, then so it is. But he decides.
He decides, at any time, if there is a need for a
change. Thus, unless he says otherwise, there is
only one bull's eye, there are no rings at all! The
living prophet is our standard.
Now there are many other things to consider:
There is the truth that was, the truth that is, and
the truth that will be. The doctrine of the church
might not include all of this. And so, what will be
your personal 'official' doctrine?
As babies in the gospel, God will never hold any
of us more responsible than accepting the word of
His living prophet! In fact, if you by faith accept
a man's word as being the word of a prophet, you
will receive the reward that comes from accepting
the words of a prophet. But eventually, the Father
teaches us all things! Every man has every right to
be equal, to stand on his own. God does not rob God
of His desire that we all become as He is. We were
not 'designed' to be 'robots,' to follow blindly!
Brigham Young wanted us all to believe what he
said, but not because he said it! He wanted us to
believe it because we got it from the same source
that he got it! Until we do, the growth God expects
has not occurred.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com>
And of course, I am free to say what I say above,
being the least on this net.
Gerald G. Fuller
of a book written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, explaining his
understanding of many things taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, and presumably believed by a plurality at least of
the membership.
To go beyond that might get involved with some who think they are the
real mormons because they are holding to what they consider the
fundamentals.
Gene
James C. Miller
<snip>
> To go beyond that might get involved with some who think they are the
> real mormons because they are holding to what they consider the
> fundamentals.
>
> Gene
My TBM brother-in-law considers himself to be a "real mormon" who
holds onto the fundamentals. He is highly critical of people who only
obey the commandments they want and not others they think are not part
of the canon. So he pays 15% tithing to get 50% more blessings (he's
an electrical engineer, the math makes sense to him), but he refuses
to pay fast offerings because he thinks that's not only NOT part of
the canon, but unholy socialism (the story of the Good Samaritan
bothers him and he's sure that section of the Bible was
mistranslated).
"Pornographic" to him is any political literature published by the
Democratic party and he doesn't understand why the Utah legislature
doesn't just get off its duff and just outlaw the Democrats and get it
over with.
The only thing lacking for him to qualify for the "Nazis Mormon"
category (the highest of five categories of Mormons formulated by
Kirby, the _Trib_ columnist) is that he's not active in any
multi-level marketing schemes. And that could just be a matter of
time.
James "Overboard" Miller
miller...@earthlink.net