Conference defending LDS doctrine catches attention of Wall Street Journal

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Aug. 9, 2011 9:06 a.m.


    Before we talk about "doctrine that's be altered and changed so many times" we need to differentiate between eternal principles and practices/policy. Practices and policies are intended to change. They are applications of eternal principles to our daily lives, and as conditions we live in change, so do practices and policies. Also, we should consider that some things believed by LDS are urban legends. An example of this is the belief that was common in the church when I was a youth that Negros couldn't have the PH because they were neutral in the war in heaven. There is nothing in the scriptures to support that belief, but it was a common belief among LDS. The practice of polygamy is an example of a practice that has changed.

    If people are confused about changing practices and policies, I would suggest they study the scriptures to clarify principles and the church handbooks to clarify policies and practices.

  • oldirishman Van Wert, OH
    Aug. 7, 2011 5:21 p.m.

    I am not sure of what "reconciliation of polygamy" means, but if it in ANY WAY meant accepting pollygamy, it will result in me voting against any candisate who does not unequivically denounce The Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS), and it's convicted leader, Warren jeffs.

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    Aug. 5, 2011 6:39 p.m.

    Thanks for the responses Jans and BYR. And you are absolutely right BYR about Holland's BofM talk. It is only fair to highlight that as one of the most passionate defenses of the BofM made by anyone in recent memory.

  • BYR Woods Cross, UT
    Aug. 5, 2011 4:46 p.m.

    Idaho Coug: I see your point. But I think the role of the GA is (or at least should be) different. They are called to preach repentance. IF they were to spend their time on apologetics (I would like to see them spend more time but not where it deters from their primary role, at least as I understand that role) they would be waiting tables, as in Act 6:2-3 (NET) (So the twelve called the whole group of the disciples together and said, It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to wait on tables. But carefully select from among you, brothers, seven men who are well-attested, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this necessary task. (A little out of context but you get my meaning) Having said that, I do recall Elder Holland defense of the BoM in general conference October last year, if I recall correctly.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    Aug. 5, 2011 3:55 p.m.

    How can you defend doctrine that's be altered and changed so many times? Which parts/renditions/versions are you actually defending?

  • jans Pickerington, OH
    Aug. 5, 2011 1:58 p.m.

    Idaho Coug, you are missing the boat here. The ones taking the primary role in defining our modern understanding of doctrine, and who answer those difficult questions, have been and will continue to do so - the prophets, apostles, seers and revelators, who are called, set apart and sustained. They speak now, they will continue to speak. We hear their words each week in church, throughout the week as we study for Sunday school and other classes, over the pulpit with direct statements from the first presidency, and twice a year directly in conference. And if you think any response that comes from the PR department, including regular church publication, isn't first approved and vetted by the highest authorities, you are mistaken.

    All these other groups are excellent examples of faithful LDS members who are making their best efforts to engage in the public sphere in a challenging world - and I commend them for their efforts. We should all pay attention and study these issues out in our minds.

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    Aug. 5, 2011 10:47 a.m.

    Otterson (PR Department), apologists, scholars and the new Mormon Defense League (of extraordinary gentlemen who nonetheless have zero authority) are the one's defining modern understanding of LDS doctrine and history. That is fine but it sure is a change from when actual called and set-apart leaders played this role. The interesting part is that there is no precident or doctrine in which a member has to consider one single word a regular church employee (Otterson), or a self appointed apologist, scholar or cool sounding committee has to say as binding, final or any form of revelation. And yet, they are the one's taking the primary role in answering the difficult questions at such an important moment in LDS history.

  • Skeezx Sacramento, CA
    Aug. 5, 2011 7:42 a.m.

    It isn't Romney and Huntsman we should be worried about. It is all the bad publicity we're going to get from the Warren Jeffs fall-out.