Freedom of belief?

[EverChanging]

I'd like to ask how much freedom of belief LDS members have in their religion? I suspect that there is quite a bit of flexibility, but I'm curious because while the religion isn't creedal there is quite a lot of prophecy issued even in present times, and lots of scripture, too. (I'm proud to say that I've read the standard works of the LDS canon -- the KJV Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, though it has been a while.)

While the Episcopal Church is officially a creedal church proclaiming the Apostles and Nicene Creeds as the expression of the beliefs of the church we in practice allow a very great deal of latitude in interpreting and reinterpreting them from the bishops on down to the laity, so I'm interested in how much latitude LDS Christians have as well in terms of freedom of belief.

Also, I don't mind similar questions in regard to the Episcopal Church in this thread as it may make for interesting discussion to compare the two churches! There are vast differences between the two churches, of course, but interesting similarities as well -- we, too, claim apostolic succession and have a hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons; we practice weekly communion nearly universally; we have seven sacramental rites including private confession, etc.

This should be an interesting discussion!

 

[PruePhillip]

I'd like to ask how much freedom of belief LDS members have in their religion?
.... This should be an interesting discussion!

Because this is constricted to the Mormon Church I doubt
you will get much conversation here. Hope I am wrong.

As I see it there are core tenants of the LDS - namely that
what Joseph Smith wrote is true, even his contentious
Book of Abraham, quote from the Mormon site, "The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the book of
Abraham as scripture."
Others think it's a bad forgery.

 

[Jane.Doe]

I'd like to ask how much freedom of belief LDS members have in their religion? I suspect that there is quite a bit of flexibility, but I'm curious because while the religion isn't creedal there is quite a lot of prophecy issued even in present times, and lots of scripture, too. (I'm proud to say that I've read the standard works of the LDS canon -- the KJV Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, though it has been a while.)

While the Episcopal Church is officially a creedal church proclaiming the Apostles and Nicene Creeds as the expression of the beliefs of the church we in practice allow a very great deal of latitude in interpreting and reinterpreting them from the bishops on down to the laity, so I'm interested in how much latitude LDS Christians have as well in terms of freedom of belief.

Also, I don't mind similar questions in regard to the Episcopal Church in this thread as it may make for interesting discussion to compare the two churches! There are vast differences between the two churches, of course, but interesting similarities as well -- we, too, claim apostolic succession and have a hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons; we practice weekly communion nearly universally; we have seven sacramental rites including private confession, etc.

This should be an interesting discussion!

I admire your willingness to read first hand sources and get your facts straight! That's totally awesome.

Like all churches, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has some beliefs which are codified must-believes. Other which are flexible in their interpretations authority.

For must-believes, you have things in the standard scriptures. The Articles of Faith (Articles of Faith 1) is part of the Peal of Great Price and is effectively a creed in scripture.

As to modern-day statements, theres is an spectrum of authority on how much weight each idea has. Things which factor into the spectrum include the who's (the multiple people) that stated this idea, the venues in which they were said, and any later commentary. One person randomly saying something once in a random venue doesn't really carry weight. There are a bunch of topics which you'll find a variety of beliefs amongst LDS people.

Note: one place that is *not* a doctrinal source for LDS is the "Journal of Discourses". Yet you'd be amazed how often anti's will quote that as if it were scripture.

 

[MJS]

The official stances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tend to focus on certain core tenants or fundamental beliefs. These generally include 1) The plan of salvation, 2) Joseph Smith's Articles of Faith, 3) the Doctrine's of Christ (IE: Repentance, Faith, Baptism by Immersion, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, enduring to the end) 4) other Christ-like principles such as charity, kindness, etc.

There is quite a lot that is not defined, and generally the expectation is that members focus their gospel learning efforts on the basics. However, in my experience there is no end to the doctrine as expressed by both early and modern day prophets. And speculation abounds among church members, probably much like anywhere else. It is not uncommon for people to teach, even over the pulpit or in Sunday School, their own opinions on doctrine. Since every person in a teaching or leadership role is a volunteer and has no special training whatsoever in teaching or leading or even on official stances of the church, this can sometimes lead to confusion. That's why the focus is usually on the basics.

One great thing about the church's teachings is that you are encouraged to seek out knowledge and answers from both temporal and spiritual sources. You are encouraged to pray and ask for your own answers and understanding. You are encouraged to seek for confirmations from God that what you are being taught by the modern prophets is true.

I will say that there is no flexibility as far as "truth" is concerned. The church teaches that truth comes from God and is eternal.

 

[MJS]

Because this is constricted to the Mormon Church I doubt
you will get much conversation here. Hope I am wrong.

As I see it there are core tenants of the LDS - namely that
what Joseph Smith wrote is true, even his contentious
Book of Abraham, quote from the Mormon site, "The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the book of
Abraham as scripture."
Others think it's a bad forgery.

Hmm. That's quite an obscure tidbit to focus on when discussing core tenants.

 

[PruePhillip]

Hmm. That's quite an obscure tidbit to focus on when discussing core tenants.

The "core tenants" we need to discuss is Christ and the New Covenant.
That He came to be the Redeemer and set before us The Example of
what living is acceptable to His Father.
Jesus ended symbolic worship, such as temples, animal sacrifices, priests,
holy days, washings, law, incense etc. All these were symbols of the Messiah
which was to come.

There was the Old Covenant. God Himself said he would do away with this
and there would be a New Covenant of love and grace.

There's no third covenant, or fourth covenant as Muslims and Mormons like
to think.

 

[Katzpur]

There was the Old Covenant. God Himself said he would do away with this
and there would be a New Covenant of love and grace.

There's no third covenant, or fourth covenant as Muslims and Mormons like
to think.

You have absolutely no compunction when it comes to misrepresenting other people's beliefs, do you?

 

[PruePhillip]

You have absolutely no compunction when it comes to misrepresenting other people's beliefs, do you?

For example - you have the Mormon temple, okay? There was no temple in the New Testament.
Certainly the disciples were at pain to show they respected the existing temple, but God did
away with that. Indeed, it was never God's plan for even the Jerusalem temple - it was something
"of the Fathers" as Jesus would have put it.
YOU are supposed to be the temple of the living God.
But religions can't resist having some "holy place" just as they love to have some "holy day" and
"holy garments" and the like. Replacing the spirit with Old Testament symbols, all over again.

That rogue Joseph Smith claimed the churches were corrupt. I accept that. But then Smith
replicates much of the corruption, and adds a bit of his own.

 

[Jane.Doe]

For example - you have the Mormon temple, okay? There was no temple in the New Testament.
Certainly the disciples were at pain to show they respected the existing temple, but God did
away with that. Indeed, it was never God's plan for even the Jerusalem temple - it was something
"of the Fathers" as Jesus would have put it.
YOU are supposed to be the temple of the living God.
But religions can't resist having some "holy place" just as they love to have some "holy day" and
"holy garments" and the like. Replacing the spirit with Old Testament symbols, all over again.

That rogue Joseph Smith claimed the churches were corrupt. I accept that. But then Smith
replicates much of the corruption, and adds a bit of his own.

You really like fighting against POV's that actually holds, don't you?

 

[Katzpur]

For example - you have the Mormon temple, okay? There was no temple in the New Testament.

Of course there was.

That rogue Joseph Smith claimed the churches were corrupt. I accept that. But then Smith
replicates much of the corruption, and adds a bit of his own.

Whatever. If you don't believe something, that apparently makes it corrupt.

 

[PruePhillip]

Of course there was.

Whatever. If you don't believe something, that apparently makes it corrupt.

By "no temple in the New Testament" I mean there was no temple doctrine in the
New Testament. Many Christians in the time of the Apostolic Church respected
the existing temple in Jerusalem, but:
1 - there exists no instruction (thus permission) in the New Covenant for a temple
2 - temples were seen as things where God wasn't to be found.
3 - your body is the temple of the living God.
4 - those who served at the earthly altar had no right to enter to presence of God (Heb 13)

 

[PruePhillip]

You really like fighting against POV's that actually holds, don't you?

What "POV" about Joseph Smith actually "holds"?
I know a lot of FACTS about Smith which have stood the test of time.
His claim of a new Jesus in the New World - with a return to polygamy,
tithing, temples, altars, commandments and the like doesn't ring true
to me.

 

[Jane.Doe]

What "POV" about Joseph Smith actually "holds"?
I know a lot of FACTS about Smith which have stood the test of time.
His claim of a new Jesus in the New World - with a return to polygamy,
tithing, temples, altars, commandments and the like doesn't ring true
to me.

And my statement still stands.

 

[Katzpur]

By "no temple in the New Testament" I mean there was no temple doctrine in the
New Testament. Many Christians in the time of the Apostolic Church respected
the existing temple in Jerusalem, but:
1 - there exists no instruction (thus permission) in the New Covenant for a temple
2 - temples were seen as things where God wasn't to be found.
3 - your body is the temple of the living God.
4 - those who served at the earthly altar had no right to enter to presence of God (Heb 13)

Never have I heard such a bunch of whacky interpretations as those.

 

[MJS]

The "core tenants" we need to discuss is Christ and the New Covenant.
That He came to be the Redeemer and set before us The Example of
what living is acceptable to His Father.
Jesus ended symbolic worship, such as temples, animal sacrifices, priests,
holy days, washings, law, incense etc. All these were symbols of the Messiah
which was to come.

There was the Old Covenant. God Himself said he would do away with this
and there would be a New Covenant of love and grace.

There's no third covenant, or fourth covenant as Muslims and Mormons like
to think.

There are 108 references to temples in the New Testament alone. Many of them are prophecies in John's book of Revelation. It is pretty clear that both Christ and his disciples viewed the temple as sacred. Christ cleansed the temple of money changers, and called it his father's house. He taught daily in the temple. Christ and his disciples often prayed in the temple. The new testament talks about rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem. Lots of talk about Priests in the new testament as well. I think your interpretation of the new law that Christ established is not supported by scripture.

 

[PruePhillip]

Never have I heard such a bunch of whacky interpretations as those.

Of course you haven't - they are in scripture but they aren't fashionable with the churches.
Do you need scriptural references?

 

[PruePhillip]

There are 108 references to temples in the New Testament alone. Many of them are prophecies in John's book of Revelation. It is pretty clear that both Christ and his disciples viewed the temple as sacred. Christ cleansed the temple of money changers, and called it his father's house. He taught daily in the temple. Christ and his disciples often prayed in the temple. The new testament talks about rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem. Lots of talk about Priests in the new testament as well. I think your interpretation of the new law that Christ established is not supported by scripture.

Yes, it was important for the disciples to pray in the temple because Christians
were being accused of disrespecting the law. But that didn't last long. Certainly
there could be no Christian worship in the temple, soon no Christians in the
temple, and shortly thereafter - no temple.
In heaven there is no temple. God's people are His temple. "You are the temple
of the living God" it says. "God does not dwell in temples made with hands."
Christians met in homes. Twice Jesus met with them in these homes. There
was no instructions or commandments to build a Christian temple - or church,
cathedral or any other structure. Like holy garments and sacred sites, these
things were added to scripture.

 

[Katzpur]

Of course you haven't - they are in scripture but they aren't fashionable with the churches.
Do you need scriptural references?

If it will make you happy.

 

[PruePhillip]

If it will make you happy.

Stephen, preaching the new covenant to the Jews said, "Howbeit the most High dwelleth
not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is
my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
Hath not my hand made all these things?"

The author of Hebrews wrote, "However, the Most High doesn't dwell in temples made
with hands." Such dwellings were symbols of what Jesus made real, "For Christ is not
entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true" Jesus is
described as coming to replace both the role of the high priest and the temple. "But Christ
being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle,
not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building." And also, "Know ye not that ye are
the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" Jesus is described as "A
minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man."
And those who served at the former "tabernacle" had "no right" to come unto the new
tabernacle in Christ.

Paul, observing an Athenian temple to the "Unknown God" remarked to its citizens, "God
that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwells
not in temples made with hands;"
Paul referred to the physical building as a form of idolatry, "what agreement hath the temple
of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them,
and walk in them;"
Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "You are God's building." and growing " ...unto an holy temple in
the Lord. Paul urged them to respect their moral bodies, "If any man defile the temple of God,
him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." and "What? know
ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and
ye are not your own?" and also, "... if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we
have a building of God, an house not made with hands..."
"For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:"
To the Ephesians Paul wrote "...are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus
Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth
unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God"

Peter spoke of his people as being "... lively stones, are built up a spiritual house" and of his death
in these terms, "Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus
Christ hath shewed me."

John, in Revelations, saw "a new heaven and a new earth" and a great voice said "Behold, the
tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God
himself shall be with them, and be their God." and the promise, "I saw no temple therein: for the
Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."

Thus the first Christians had no "continuing city." They followed in the footsteps of the OT saints
who "looked forward to a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." They
saw themselves as "strangers" and "aliens" in a foreign land, "dwelling in tents" and in "deserts
and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground" desiring "another country," where "God
is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city."

 

[PruePhillip]

If it will make you happy.

Peter held the first Gentile service in Cornelius' house.
There is an allusion to a church in Jason's house;
in Lydia's house
and in Mary's house.
When Paul taught the newly formed churches, he did so from "house to house"
Paul saluted Nymphas and the brethren who met in his house at Laodicea
Paul saluted the brethren who met in the house of Philemon, probably at Colossae.
Paul also referred to Priscilla and Aquilla and twice to "the church that is in their house."

These people followed no custom in meeting in this manner: there is no record of
Jews or Pagans worshiping in homes.