I remember a woman in my ward telling during her “testimony” that her father had told her he would rather have her dead that do something that would shame him. (At the time she was joining one of the Services during World War II.)

I was young, but I shocked! In her father’s heart was there no room for repentance and forgiveness. And was he so pure in every way that he would never need to repent or to ask forgiveness.

Apparently, there are still members out there that think the same way. These members are so pure they could never need to repent or be forgiven.

Mariah

He has done a similar hit job on Mormonism.

It is very hard to counter these people in a one on one debate as they selectively alter material from tens of thousands of pages of material written over centuries. No one can be expected to answer these charges on the spur of the moment. It requires sometimes extensive research to uncover what they have twisted.

All of these people worship Mammon and sell their lies to a hardcore audience predisposed to believe this bile.

On the other hand, I’m sure there will always be the fanatic, close-minded, vocal member of the church who will preach this kind of thing over the pulpit as truth. Most of the time we just brush off “crazy Brother So-and-so’s” comments, and we forget that the impressionable out there might not know where we actually stand on something like this.

I think about 99.99% of adults in the world have broken the LOC (if you include masturbation). According to these goofballs, I guess I’m supposed to believe that it was God’s will that they all should have died before they did it.

I hope intelligent people give LDS a little more credit than that.

Wanna see a good explanation of how the LDS approach doctrine? (Or at least SHOULD approach it?) See the article Approaching Mormon Doctrine on the Church’s Web site.

-Allen

Whenever we are called on any specific belief in a public setting (like GBH on LK) that makes us uncomfortable, that belief is undoctrinal. Who cares how many prophets, seers, and revelators said it?

Again, I agree that this doesn’t make it church doctrine, but that’s using my definition of doctrine, and I can definitely see how a lot of church members would see it as doctrine if it is condoned, if not at times taught, by members of the church hierarchy. One could make a plausible argument that the words of living prophets being scripture, this is indeed a doctrine of our church. I would disagree, but I don’t think that such an argument is completely baseless or absurd.

I’m with Duncan in hoping that the church begins to correct those who teach it.

Just because you “hear it in church” (even many times) does not make it Church doctrine.

Even in this critic’s video, none of the quotes indicate that what is being taught is official Church doctrine. At 1:08 into the video the quote makes it clear that it is the parents sending children out with “the direction” about the value of their chastity. It is not the Church. It even says “many is the parent” who has sent youth out this way, not that all should.

In a later quote, at 2:58 into the video, President Romney makes it clear that this “doctrine” was taught to him by his parents for the purpose of impressing upon him the seriousness of chastity. This “doctrine” was one chosen by his parents, not codified by the Church, and President Romney used it to likewise illustrate the point to the youth with whom he was trying to communicate.

This is a method of teaching, not a doctrine of the Church. It is no more a doctrine of the Church than the “ruined cake” object lesson many teachers used to illustrate a point about pre-marital sex.

-Allen