Oops! USA Today goofs in cover story about LDS beliefs

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • roberto Moses Lake, WA
    Jan. 31, 2012 7:01 p.m.

    Red Corvette ..........I think we found the source of the USA TODAY Artical. Spoken like somebody who really doesn't understand. and probably doesn't want to.

  • mightymite DRAPER, UT
    Jan. 31, 2012 3:51 p.m.

    The mormon church by it's own actions has created confusion on what the church believes. Don't go blaming the the messanger.

  • Robbie512 PROVO, UT
    Jan. 31, 2012 2:31 p.m.

    It is difficult to talk about bona fide LDS doctrine, because the only way to know if the prophet is right is to ask God yourself. This extends to both modern and ancient scripture, since all prophets are human and subject to error. Consider an excerpt from the the Book of Mormon title page: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." Even noted apologist Michael Ash argues for this point.

  • Igualmente Mesa, AZ
    Jan. 31, 2012 11:58 a.m.

    Black Americans received civil rights only 14 years prior to this revelation. Instead of accusing the Church of racism, perhaps it was our society that was not ready until 1978.

  • screenname Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2012 11:55 a.m.

    Actually, Kami, the "official position" of the Church has always been very neatly spelled out. If it's not canon, it's not official. No matter what any bishop, Sunday School teacher, seminary teacher, or even a General Authority tells you in a book he published, even if he confusingly names it "Mormon Doctrine," if it hasn't been canonized, it's not official doctrine.

  • Kami Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 31, 2012 9:41 a.m.

    Too funny. Members don't even know what the "official position" of the church is at times on "sensitive" issues.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 31, 2012 1:16 a.m.

    It wasnt church doctrine? How does one define church doctrine?

  • fromSTL Saint Louis, MO
    Jan. 30, 2012 5:15 p.m.

    Sigh, the Deseret News isn't doing much better. Your quote, "the church's old interpretation of Scripture that black men bore the mark of Cain," perpetuates the problem. Some church leaders clearly used this argument to explain the ban to themselves, but I don't think this was official church doctrine.

  • screenname Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2012 2:48 p.m.

    Red Corvette,

    My seminary teacher taught us that the three wise men from the Nativity story were Nephites who had traveled across the Bering Strait, among other things. That's obviously not Church doctrine, since everyone knows that the Bible doesn't tell us how many wise men there were.

    Your point was what, again?

  • don17 Temecula, CA
    Jan. 30, 2012 1:17 p.m.

    To;Red Corvette:

    Statement 2 Clartification to your answer shows that it was a revelation:

    On June 9, 1978, the First Presidency released the following statement:

    June 8, 1978

    To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

    Dear Brethren:

    As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

    Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

    He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows there from, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to ensure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

    We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

    Sincerely yours,

    The First Presidency[5]

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 30, 2012 1:16 p.m.

    Corvette: Hearing it in Seminary doesn't make it official church doctrine. My seminary teacher told us there would be a schism in the church when President died. He said tradition would favor Joseph Fielding Smith but, due to his age, many would follow Harold B Lee. When we asked who we should support, he said that he would follow HBL. Seminary and BYU classes are not where we get official church doctrine.

    We had black church members in my California ward and we were never taught that they bore the mark of Cain. If it was official church doctrine, don't you think it would have been taught despite our demographics?

    Finally, whether SWK called it a revelation or not, the author is certainly correct in saying that it was not a new interpretation of scripture. In fact, great pains were taken to ensure that the Official Declaration was in accordance with scripture and doctrine. Victor Ludlow spoke on this once and he was one of the sources consulted on the issue.

    We can quibble over the meaning of the word "revelation" but I believe I have received revelation as a result of fasting and prayer. It happens.

  • ahwalker04 bridge city, TX
    Jan. 30, 2012 12:11 p.m.

    I jus think before people start trying understand our beliefs they need to read more and understand things before trying write a paper on our beliefs.... david is going on his mission to serve his church and heavenly father .. this not called a mission vaction ..... lds since i was 15

  • KJPM Orem, UT
    Jan. 30, 2012 11:52 a.m.

    I also noticed in the article that David Archuleta is taking a 2 year mission vacation.....

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 29, 2012 12:51 p.m.

    Stenar- How so?

  • Stenar Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 27, 2012 5:02 p.m.

    Well, the garments are blessed.