Latter-day Credo

On January 16th the Associated Press provided interested readers a short list of the Key Tenets of [the] Mormon Faith. The list is comprised of these six items:

Nature of God: God once was a mortal who became an eternal being after a great trial.

Jesus Christ: Christ was God’s first-born spirit child, his only earthly child and the only perfect mortal.

No Trinity: Mormons reject the idea of the Christian Trinity — God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as one ethereal being. Instead, they believe the three are separate beings joined in a common purpose.

Pre-existence and the afterlife: Before their mortal birth, humans existed in pre-mortality and were born in the spirit world to heavenly parents. Mormons also believe in the resurrection and teach that most people will receive some measure of salvation and have a place in a three-level eternal kingdom.

One true church: Mormons say their faith is not Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox but holds a unique place as “restored New Testament Christianity.” Founder Joseph Smith said God told him none of the existing churches were practicing Christianity as it was intended.

A living prophet: Mormons believe the head of their church is a living prophet, seer and revelator who can communicate with God.

To me, this seems like a reasonable snap shot of Mormonism. Certainly there could be more written — more points, more detail and clarity (e.g., instead of saying, “they believe the three are separate beings,” it would have been better to say, “they believe the three are separate Gods”) — but for what it is, the Associated Press did a fair job.

I wonder what Latter-day Saints think of the list. Do they find any fault with it? Many Mormons reacted strongly (and vocally) against last month’s public disclosure of the LDS doctrine regarding the sibling-status of Jesus and Lucifer. Do Latter-day Saints put the AP list in the same category? That is, do Mormons believe the Associated Press has attacked their faith by publishing these key tenets? Is this also an attempt (as an LDS spokesperson suggested last month about the Jesus/Lucifer question) to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine? What do you think? And why do you think it?

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Latter-day Credo

  1. falcon says:

    As a nonMormon, based on my reading and study of Mormonism, this seems like a reasonable glimpse into the basic doctrine of the Mormon Church. I don’t know why Mormons would react negatively to it. What I’m wondering about is what would be the next level (depth) of explanation or discussion regarding basic Mormon doctrine?

  2. Renee says:

    The LDS won’t accuse the AP of attacking their faith for this article because the AP is not considered an “anti”, and it’s not asking anyone to really think about what is taught in the LDS church. It’s been my experience that Mormons only accuse those of us who do not agree with them of attacking their faith; especially when we try to point out why we don’t agree with them, and try to get them to think logically about what is taught by the LDS church.

    It’s hard not to go on the attack when there is no logical expanation for what you believe. The courageous person may see the error of his ways and immediately say I was wrong and change them. But for most of us it takes some processing before we can get up the courage to say I was wrong and not care what our peers think. Then there is Mormonism’s triple whammy of possible excommunication from family, friends and church for even considering that there might be something wrong with LDS teachings. Yes, for most LDS it is better to accuse those who want them to think of being “anti”, than to face the consequences that thinking logically could cause them.

  3. dj1989 says:

    The list seems perfectly fine to me (btw… I’m Mormon). Even though it’s fine to me, as I read it and as I try to understand it through the eyes of a non-Mormon, I can see 2 words in there that I think might throw off a non-Mormon reader a little bit, whereas a Mormon reader might glance past them, due to the fact that they’re close (but really, they don’t work). Here they are:

    1. God once was a mortal

    If I hadn’t known all the other aspects of Mormonism, this might lead me to think that Mormons believe God lived on Earth a long time ago, which is 100% incorrect.

    2. humans existed in pre-mortality and were born in the spirit world to heavenly parents

    The problem with this one is the word “born”. As humans are only familiar with one birthing process, it is fair to say that that birthing process is the image conjured in the mind of a non-Mormon when they read this. We do not teach that spirits were “born” per se, but it would be accurate to say that we were “created”. As this doesn’t necessarily conjure up a certain image, it is more accurate, because Mormons do not claim to know exactly how we were created before coming to Earth… only that we were spiritually created before being physically created.

    But… all in all… it’s pretty fair, and I too can look past the inconsistencies of the author.

    BTW… I don’t come on here often enough to reply to inquiries in a timely way, but I’m happy to do so through direct contact… so feel free contact me:

    dj1989[at]gmail[dot]com

  4. iamse7en says:

    As a devout Mormon deeply enthralled in LDS Theology, I do find a slight problem with the first tenet.

    First, nobody ‘becomes’ an eternal being. Joseph Smith taught that all spirits are co-eternal with God. God did not become an eternal being. By virtue of his ‘spiritual’ make-up (intelligence), he is already an eternal being, just as his children. That is just poor wording. This is why journalists like the AP should stick to original wording, to not mess up doctrine.

    Second, the first tenet does not comprehensively describe the Mormon view on the ‘Nature of God.’ God was a mortal, and became a Heavenly Father? That hardly tells of the Nature of God. They should have added the corporeal nature, attributes of perfection, and man’s relationship to Him.

    Third, and most ridiculous, is this statement: “[God] became an eternal being after A GREAT TRIAL.” What?! Again, awful wording. That does not properly characterize the Mormon view of the Plan of Salvation. That ‘great trial’ is aeons of choices, development, obedience, and progression, which includes a pre-mortal spirit existence, a mortal physical experience, a post-mortal spirit existence, resurrection, and “a great while” all before coming a Heavenly Father.

    Side question to all: Why is it so ridiculous to believe that sons and daughters, born of their parents, are destined to become like their parents, if they so choose? Does not God command us to be perfect, JUST AS HE is perfect? Is that not a commandment to become an all-loving, all-knowing, creator? Is not this the logical pathway of existence? Does not the begotten become like the begetter? If that is such the case in mortality, then why not it be the case in eternity? When you become a loving father in mortality after you have developed, does that take away from the respect, love, and devotion you have to your own father? Though there may be MANY fathers throughout man’s existence, does that change the special relationship you have with your own father?

  5. iamse7en says:

    dj1989,

    I must correct a statement you have made:

    “We do not teach that spirits were ‘born’ per se, but it would be accurate to say that we were ‘created.'”

    From 1st Presidency Statement (1909), The Origin of Man:

    “The doctrine of the preexistence—revealed so plainly, particularly in latter days—pours a wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man’s origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was BEGOTTEN and BORN of heavenly parents and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality. It teaches that all men existed in the spirit before any man existed in the flesh and that all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner.”

    It is very crucial to Mormon doctrine, that spirits were BEGOTTEN and BORN to Heavenly Parents. Intrinsic in those words are the principles of divine inheritance and divine potential. Were we not BEGOTTEN of our Heavenly Parents, and just simply ‘created,’ then we would not have had the ‘seeds of godliness’ transmitted to us through that birthing process. We do not know the principles involved with celestial sex, or spirit birth, or anything like unto it. They are eternal in nature.

  6. dj1989 says:

    iamse7en-

    Good catches (both in your comments on the article, as well as on my own comments). I agree with you, and think you have worded it better than I.

    I guess the thing that I was trying to detract non-Mormons from picturing in their heads, and from accepting as our beliefs, is the image of a mortal birth transposed to a spiritual being (that of being pregnant, baby coming out of the birth canal, etc).

    Since that is the only image that people associate with being “born”, and additionally (and unfortunately) since there are videos and other materials that depict our beliefs as being such. I just wanted to emphasize that we do not know the details ourselves on what that process entails, nor do we teach details like that.

    But, I understand what you’re saying and agree with you.

  7. amanda says:

    Renee and others,

    Alas, the usual gripe has made a comeback…”Why do Mormons get so offended when ALL we are doing is disagreeing with them??”

    I can give you plenty of examples that suggest there is more to this site, and to evangelical ministry that go BEYOND a simple disagreement. LDS doctrines obviously put our beliefs at odds with Evangelicals, but I don’t see too many LDS “ministry” sites that put evangelicals on the defensive over every single issue; minute topics like coffee and postum, what color underwear joseph smith wore, (and he should have known orange wasn’t a good choice with his pasty skin if he was a REAL prophet), gossip about members (with very little facts), propaganda our congregations to vote against Huckabee, and make fun of pastors who make BANK supposedly doing God’s will.

    That is what we find so obnoxious, Renee. I could discuss religion all day, and have, with my in-laws. And we usually do it respectfully. They continue to do their thing, and I continue to read my Book of Mormon.

    Maybe your sensing our impatience with evangelicals. That is something we should work on. After all, I am aware of evangelical tactics when discussing religion, it would be ridiculous for me to expect anything different and then on top of that get offended because it proved to be what I knew it would be! Maybe there is a hint of that- but not much.

    In regards to the article, It’s a non-issue with me. I am not offended.

  8. Ralph says:

    Iamse7en,
    I to am LDS but I am answering your side question to help you understand the Ev view. They do not believe in a pre-existence and that we are spirit children of our Heavenly Father. They believe that we become children of adoption once we have accepted Jesus Christ as our Saviour. So in this case, the child cannot become like the parent as the parent is only an adopted one, not literal. When it comes to the commandment of being perfect they believe that once accepting Jesus Christ, He makes us perfect through His atonement and there is nothing else to do. So it is entirely different to our way of thinking, but the terminology sounds the same but means different. So yes they believe that we are God’s children, but not literal just adopted. And they also believe that they are already perfect as they have accepted Jesus Christ as their Saviour.
    This is what I have understood from the many discussions I have had on this site. However I may have misunderstood and got this wrong – Please feel free to correct me if I have.

    As for the article – its unbiased and inoffensive but as other said a little adjusting could make it better.

  9. HankSaint says:

    Renee says, “Then there is Mormonism’s triple whammy of possible excommunication from family, friends and church for even considering that there might be something wrong with LDS teachings. Yes, for most LDS it is better to accuse those who want them to think of being “anti”, than to face the consequences that thinking logically could cause them.”

    Renee it’s statements like the above that show a complete misunderstanding that the Church of Jesus Christ Of LDS would in anyway hinder or demand complete servitude to the faith, and beliefs of all the doctrine in the Church.

    I would ask you to document any case of one being excommunicated for questioning a belief or particular doctrine.
    You won’t be able too, so how about a retraction of your miss-statement. 🙂

    I was teaching a investigators class once, in those classes anyone can attend. We have members, investigators and recent newly baptized converts. I was giving the lesson when one of the new converts asked a question, and in doing so related back to their old beliefs brought with them from another denomination, in which they still believed to be true. A member came up to me after the lesson and was upset and thought I should straighten out the convert and tell her it was wrong to hold on to that belief. I replied that it was OK, and that each individual through study and prayer would eventually progress and attain answers to all truth, and it was not up to us to change anybody or demand them to believe a certain way. The Church teaches and practices, the principle of Agency or the right to choose and make choices. If you can show me otherwise I would be open to debate or comment more on your miss-statement.

  10. HankSaint says:

    To those who are Mormons, I would invite you to a Web Site that has great discussions and both EV’s and Mormons have freedom to debate the differences.

    Please check out: http://concernedchristians.org/board/index.php

    For the record I agree very much with the above posts by my Mormon Brothers and Sisters. When explained in clarity and with facts, the assumed and contrived views of non- members is given over to a picture of a wonderful and marvelous Plan with logic and common sense. Thank goodness for the Gift of the Holy Ghost who testifies to all truth, and is free to all who inquire.

  11. In Re: HankSaint’s request…

    “I would ask you to document any case of one being excommunicated for questioning a belief or particular doctrine.
    You won’t be able too, so how about a retraction of your miss(sic)-statement. :-)”

    How about Fawn McKay Brodie? Ms. Brodie certainly questioned the beliefs and doctrines of the LDS church, and in a most public way.

  12. Arthur Sido says:

    I woujld think this would be viewed with suspicion if not outright hostility by the mormon leadership at least. Any attempt, even a very accurate and brief one like this that is not SLC approved is going to be viewed at least with suspicion, and likely as part of the shadowy [filtered profanity or slur] conspiracy.

    I wonder how many mormons, plucked at random from a sacrament meeting on sunday would recognize or be able to explain even these simple doctrines? For a church that prides itself on a living prophet to explain and clarify, there is an awful lot of confusion going on.

  13. HankSaint says:

    Well, I guess we would have to discontinue all of our classes at church and our Sacrament meeting, since we delve into the doctrine, but explained better by those previous post by my Brothers and Sisters in the Church. Maybe you ought to stand out front and do the interview, better yet come on in and joint the discussions, we teach the Restored Gospel, that was lost along with the Priesthood for many years. 🙂

    Sincerely, Richard HankSaint.

  14. amanda says:

    Arthur,

    Confusion or learning? I guess it depends on how you look at things. There are some who seek to confuse. But those humble followers of Christ (wherever they are) are learning. Confusion is of the devil. I find learning at church and at the temple, learning when I read my scriptures and say my prayers–not confusion.

    Evangelicals consistently demand that LDS look at their faith and their history, with confusion. Yet, forget one could apply the same to their beliefs and history. I believe the example the Lord set was one of looking at things with the glass is half-full mentality…seeing the good and being good. Satan would have us look at things with the glass is half-empty mentality and act on that perspective.

  15. amanda says:

    HankSaint,

    I commend you. Those new members can clearly be entrusted to your teaching. I have a convert husband. He rejects a lot of common positions held by long-time church members. He doesn’t believe we have a Heavenly mother etc… yYou are spot-on. ALL of us are learning. Thank you for bringing much needed perspective to the gospel.

  16. falcon says:

    Hmmmmm…..the restored gospel and the priesthood that was lost for many years. So my guess is that the Mormon position would have to be that the restored gospel they preach was the original. It doesn’t appear in the NT so I am guessing what would have to be believed is that the apostates left it out of the NT and it was restored by revelation. I’m just speculating here. I wonder what else got corrupted and might be restored by future revelations. Here’s the deal though, how do we know that plural marrage et al was in the NT and then got left out by the apostates. I thinking that what’s in the NT is the original and that Joseph Smith, in order to develop a following, had to teach that the established faith and doctrines were wrong. Can any of our Mormon friends out there in cyberspace prove that what they have is the original. The burden of proof is on you since as Ev. Christian we have a lineage that goes back 2,000 years and not 170 or so.

  17. HankSaint says:

    Falcon, we teach the lost doctrine of Faith, Repentance, Forgiveness, Baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

    What else is needed, Christ Himself taught this, even in the New Testament, what you lost was the Requirement of Baptism. This one essential requirement has been skipped over because if you accepted it you would have to accept works.
    Baptism is a work. Peace Brother.

  18. HankSaint says:

    Amanda says, HankSaint,

    I commend you. Those new members can clearly be entrusted to your teaching. I have a convert husband. He rejects a lot of common positions held by long-time church members. He doesn’t believe we have a Heavenly mother etc… You are spot-on. ALL of us are learning. Thank you for bringing much needed perspective to the gospel.

    I gain so much from others such as you,

    “Evangelicals consistently demand that LDS look at their faith and their history, with confusion. Yet, forget one could apply the same to their beliefs and history. I believe the example the Lord set was one of looking at things with the glass is half-full mentality…seeing the good and being good. Satan would have us look at things with the glass is half-empty mentality and act on that perspective.” Amanda.

    If you were to look at all the principles we teach and practice, Family Home Evening, Tithing and Fast Offerings, Visiting Teaching, Home Teaching, Blessings, Family Prayer, Temple work, and much more, are the things Satan would shun and discourage. Peace to you, have a great day at Church. Watch out for Arthur Sido, he might be out in front randomly wanting to know why you believe these principles. Don’t ignore him, just invite him in for some Light and Knowledge. 🙂

    HankSaint.

  19. amanda says:

    Falcon,

    “Can any of our Mormon friends out there in cyberspace prove that what they have is the original?”

    We have, to ourselves. That’s why we believe it. Can we prove it to you? No. It is not my job to PROVE, it is my job to testify. Can YOU prove YOU have original scripture intended by NT apostles? No.

    In terms of your 2000 years of heritage (which by the way, LDS share-our ancestors)- if 2000 years of slow corruption of the gospel of Jesus Christ took place, how is that a badge of honor? We all claim Jesus is our Christ, the only important consideration is where to find HIS gospel…not how long we have believed fallacious and corrupt doctrine.

    You should read 1Nephi 13: 25-28. I have added a few notes of clarity in parenthetical. Entire chapter is good, but pertaining to the bible, it reads:

    25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God. [old testament-bible]
    26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.
    27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.
    28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

    Here you see our belief in the bible and what it intended- However, early Christianity most certainly perverted many original teachings of even New Testament authority…and I can prove that.

  20. amanda says:

    Falcon,

    I failed to add (lack of space) that when I say fallacious and corrupt, I do not believe your pastors, you, or the many millions of non-lds who read the bible fall into those two categories… but I am saying that 2000 years of removing precious doctrines, your congregations are left with the pieces, trying to put them together. Many do so honorably, and many continue to use those doctrines for personal gain.

    What the Lord has done is restore these truths to ALL of us. LDS come from evangelical, catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and many other backgrounds. We come because as individuals we have found his restored gospel, and we have accepted it, through no strength of our own. It is a miraculous blessing, and we share it because we desire the same for our fellow Christian neighbors…we want you to experience the fullness, just as we strive to experience the fullness of His gospel.

    Regardless of what I’ve said, I don’t believe it is easy to reconfigure your way of thinking. However, as a believer in the restored gospel, I MUST reconfigure myself in order to become more like Him. That is what He desires for us. He has atoned for our sins so that we can leave our sins behind and progress to be his followers in every way, in deed and in spirit. Without His atonement, we would not be able progress. He payed the price for sin so that we can chose His paths without hindrance. The price has been paid, so we can more fully submit our will to His because we are free from the bonds of sin. It’s a beautiful gospel.

  21. Jacob5 says:

    Wow, I think this is turning into a gospel lesson. Hehe (don’t worry EV’s) just kidding.

    Aside from the previous statements made by members of my faith, I find nothing altogether disturbing.

    The one thing we must remember is that God was always God. There was no point at time in which he did exist. And, if we consider how the length of this mortal life is in comparison to the grand total of our existence (if there could ever be such a thing), this life would be equated to a short pop quiz in the first grade year of a student that eventually goes on to become a PhD. I think the dificult part for anyone to comprehend is “Eternity.” That is a relatively short word for such a profound concept. Since we have a limited memory in this life, how can we describe eternity? To beings that are given a point of birth (a beginning) and a point of death (an ending) how do we truly get to the heart of the matter.
    For one thing we must remember that it is a state of being away from our real home with our Father. This is just a finite position, and, once we go through it all, we will finally be given an understanding of what eternity is. This is why I feel very comfortable with the idea that our Father went the process of the Plan of Salvation, and why we can say he is flawless today and forever. Because He had gone through it all, and from His position, we can see that he passed the test, which extends to Him of being an Eternal God. And he has created children so they may also participate in the same Plan of Salvation so that we may yet extend that through the eternities to others. It is very beautiful if you think of it. It is not a plan to see how many people we can cast down to the nether regions of existence but to see how many can be brought to greatness. Just as the Savior said, “Bless them that curse you, do good for them that despitefully use you.” Just as he decended below us all to lift us up, should it not be our duty as his followers to help others?

  22. HankSaint says:

    Thanks Jacob, great post. I have often wondered about the easiness of EV’s to believe in eternity, a hard concept to fathom, but my take is, if there is and eternity, or continuation, why would it be not the same as a never beginning, a point of original kick-off. Mormons believe, there never was a beginning as much as they believe there is never an ending. If I’m wrong, and EV’s also believe this, than I apologies for my miss-statement and need to be corrected. But I always though that only Mormons believed in a pre-existence. 🙂

    Hopefully room for debate.

  23. Rick B says:

    Amanda said

    “Can any of our Mormon friends out there in cyberspace prove that what they have is the original?”

    We have, to ourselves. That’s why we believe it. Can we prove it to you? No. It is not my job to PROVE, it is my job to testify. Can YOU prove YOU have original scripture intended by NT apostles? No.

    Their is plenty of Evidence the Bible is real, while their is zero evidence the BoM is real.

    Psalm 138, God says He puts His word above His name, Do you really think He would allow is Word to get lost?

    The BoM has over 4,000 changes and some are serious doctrinal changes. We have the Dead Sea scrolls to prove the Scriptures yet no golden plates or reformed Egyption.

    I said it before, Chuck Missler read the Account of Paul being Shipwrecked, used the Bible as his guide and found the two anchors they threw over board. then back in may 14th 1948 the Jews after 2,000 came back into their land Just as the Bible said. No other nation lasted over 300 years before they were lost and forgotten, yet the Jews did.

    Then we read in the Book of John,

    John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

    John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

    This is not taught in the BoM. then you have the God commanded “Corrected” Version of the Bible, AKA J.S.T. Which you still quote more from the “Corrputed” version of the Bible, than using the “Corrected” Version. Rick b

  24. amanda says:

    Rick

    “God says He puts His word above His name, Do you really think He would allow is Word to get lost?”

    No, so when early Christians lost their way, He restored HIS word through a separate people- The Book of Mormon was translated- 🙂

    I like how you refer to the bible like it is yours though, we believe the bible as well Rick, it isn’t owned by evangelicals.

    AT best, the new testament is a translation from copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of alleged originals…and there are PLENTY of scholars who back my position…some who use to be evangelicals 😉 So anyone’s belief in the NT has to have faith, not proof of its’ divinity. Evidence in scholarly circles would completely alarm you, Rick. You should read more about early Christianity from these unbiased sources. I know you like to read, too.

  25. Still waiting for Mr. HankSaint’s response to this post…

    In Re: HankSaint’s request…

    “I would ask you to document any case of one being excommunicated for questioning a belief or particular doctrine.
    You won’t be able too (sic), so how about a retraction of your miss(sic)-statement. :-)”

    How about Fawn McKay Brodie? Ms. Brodie certainly questioned the beliefs and doctrines of the LDS church, and in a most public way.

  26. Jacob5 says:

    If you don’t mind HankSaint, i’d like to take this.

    Obidavekenobi, That is a far cry from “questioning a beleif or particular doctrine.”
    1. She had pretty much left the church well before any excommunication.
    2. There is a big difference between what Hanksaint had said a publishing material in outright opposition to a churches beliefs.
    3. She wasn’t even excommunicated until about 2 years after the book was even publish well after she may have simply questioned beliefs or doctrines.
    Pray-tell, do you allow anyone in your church who who openly oppose your beliefs in public. Besides if we go according to what EVs may think of our church, didn’t we technically do her a favor?
    There are times when I can claim ignorance to a certain topic or principle given by my church, but I have found by studying the scriptures and personal prayer, I was able to understand it. I didn’t simply think that my misunderstanding was grounds to disbelieve my faith, but that is me and not you. It’s all good.

  27. HankSaint says:

    She had long been disaffected, not only from Mormonism but from religion altogether. She was a thorough-going secularist, an agnostic or an atheist, and had been, so she claimed, since her teenage years. She was every bit as disdainful of your form of Christianity as of mine. http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/UMI-1.htm

    Later in 1938, Brodie set out to explain what she imagined were the sources for the Book of Mormon. And this undertaking soon required her to explain Joseph Smith. She was eventually duly excommunicated for apostasy.

    Excommunication is generally reserved for what are seen as the most serious sins, including committing serious crimes; committing adultery, polygamy, or homosexual conduct; apostasy, teaching false doctrines, or openly criticizing LDS leaders. In most cases, excommunication is a last resort, used only after repeated warnings. A 2006 revision to the Church Handbook of Instructions states that joining another church is also an excommunicable offense, however merely attending another church does not constitute apostasy.

  28. woenigma says:

    Re:Hanksaints request: My parents were excommunicated for believing the dead prophets over the living prophets. They were just asking questions about some of the sermons in the JoD and just wanted some explanations. They still have strong testimonies on the BoM and Joseph Smith but they found their questions where not welcome or tolerated in the Church.

  29. HankSaint says:

    Woenigma, why should I doubt you? what good cause would it do?
    If they were excommunicated than they would know why, as for what they tell others that is their privilege, but as far as I know the Church is petty closed mouth about why, and for very private and personal reason, so as not to embarrass the ex-member. So you would most likely have only one version, am I right or did the Church come out a proclaim their sins? I think you will have a hard time with that one. Peace Brother 🙂

  30. woenigma says:

    HankSaint, does the Church tell why people are ex’ed? I don’t think they do. I DO believe my parents; they have always been awesome people. They had asked their Stake President to go to the archives, because they were not allowed entry being of the common people, to look up some of the things they questioned. Before their “court” they asked him if he found what they told him to look up. He stated he did and so much more. During their court he said NOTHING in their defense. However, people do not make the restored gospel wrong. Are you familiar with Leonard J. Arrington?

  31. Jacob5 says:

    Woenigma,
    I find the situation quite heroing. I think that there might be many out there who might have reacted differently than you. I have never been faced with such an experience.
    I have heard a story about a member of my church who had been seen with non-member friends and when those who saw them drink using cups similar to those of his friends, they assumed that he had been drinking alcohol. They immediately reported this to the bishop, and, when the bishop had talked about this to the member, he said that he honestly was not drinking alcohol. The bishop did believe him, but the others who saw him were adamant about what they thought was true. This later lead to meeting with other church leaders in the area. Now the one member wasn’t excommunicated, but because of the constant ruccus of the other members who saw him, he felt it better to move out of the area.
    Now, the situation may be a bit different, but he didn’t give up on the church because the church had failed to convence the other members. If your parents were truly wronged, then they should bring it up to a higher authority. If they still maintain there to have been no serious offense take it to the next level. Don’t forget the parable of the unjust judge. It is true, individuals to not make the church, and if they were wrongfully excommunicated then there may yet be another who may yet reverse a wrong committed upon another.

  32. HankSaint says:

    Woenigma says, “I DO believe my parents; they have always been awesome people.

    I have no reason not to believe you. Again there is recourse to their plight and as Jacob stated, trying moving up the ladder, every member has the right to discuss a wrong with General Authorities.
    If they cherish their membership as much as I do mine, I would fight with every ounce to redeem myself is wronged. Since I don’t know the full story, I can not stand in judgement. But just from my 50 yrs of membership, this is a first for me, to see the way your parents were treated.

Comments are closed.