We had a great missionary doctrine moment yesterday...

[statman]

Well it was actually a just released/returned missionary moment. It was a missionary "homecoming" - except we don't do those anymore. Unfortunately, this guy was given a doctrinal topic to speak on - the Holy Ghost - that somehow he ABSOLUTELY butchered doctrinally.

The meeting started with one of his nephews being blessed. Then he spoke and his family (14 kids, he is second or third youngest) sang a chintzy Christmas song with a calypso beat - and of course, sang it in both English and Spanish. But his talk was so far off the mark doctrinally, the Stake President had to do damage control. He had to postpone the last speaker (a new HP in our ward) until next week and fix what the newly returned missionary f-ed up.

There was so much that he got wrong, but the gist of it was that when a missionary is teaching someone it really is the Light of Christ that they feel, not a witness from the Holy Ghost. To back this position up, he quoted (misquoted) BKP from "Preach My Gospel" -

“It is important for a . . . missionary . . . to know that the Holy Ghost can work through the Light of Christ. A teacher of gospel truths is not planting something foreign or even new into an adult or a child. Rather, the missionary
or teacher is making contact with the Spirit of Christ already there. The gospel will have a familiar ‘ring’ to them” (“The Light of Christ,” address delivered at the seminar for new mission presidents, 22 June 2004, 2).))

- even though there are a whole bunch of scriptures that directly contradict it. Also, PMG clears up any ambiguity on this concept later on -

The power of the Holy Ghost. The witness that comes to sincere investigators before baptism comes through the power of the Holy Ghost. “The power [of the Holy Ghost] can come upon one before baptism, and is the convincing witness that the gospel is true. It gives one a testimony of Jesus Christ and of his work and the work of his servants upon the earth” (Bible Dictionary, “Holy Ghost,” 704). The Holy Ghost testifies of truth. All people can know the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon through the power of the Holy Ghost. “By the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:5).

Anyway, there was so much more than just misinterpreting the BKP quote. He went on and on with nonsense, and it really was bad enough that the Stake President had no other choice but to stop and clear-up the doctrine. I've never seen anything quite so bad - especially from someone who got it wrong over and over again for 20 minutes...

[pellegrino]

glad to see the bar has been raised. I think we're really beginning to see the fruits of that policy jingo.

[hostile]

especially from someone who got it wrong over and over again for 20 minutes...

sounds like he may have gotten it wrong for 2 years.

[Donuthole]

We had a RM speaker entertain us in my in-laws' ward. He shared stories from his mission in Peoria, IL, and then ended by sharing the story of "The Room", complete with the false antecedent about the kid who wrote it two weeks before he died, with some nice LDS twists added in.

You can read the full story here, complete with delicious irony.

[CardiacCoug]

Anyway, there was so much more than just misinterpreting the BKP quote. He went on and on with nonsense, and it really was bad enough that the Stake President had no other choice but to stop and clear-up the doctrine. I've never seen anything quite so bad - especially from someone who got it wrong over and over again for 20 minutes...

I understand the point that he presented Church doctrine incorrectly.

At the same time, though, I think it's funny that with these entirely abstract and unknowable things like the distinction between the "Light of Christ" and a "Witness from the Holy Ghost" that people like to act like there is a right and wrong answer to these questions.

Sure, there is a position that aligns with Church doctrine and a position that doesn't align with Church doctrine. And in Sacrament Meeting or as a missionary for the Church you should stick to saying things are doctrinal.

But this isn't math. It's all completely abstract and unknowable, right? The only people I worry about are the people who think they can describe with great detail the fine distinctions between the Light of Christ and the Witness of the Holy Ghost -- they are the crazy ones.

[jay santos]

15 years ago I was a doctrinal nazi. A few years ago Tex accused me of being a doctrinal gladfly. Nowadays, I barely qualify for posting as a LDS. But here is my take.

SU is closer to the truth than he knows when he says there is no LDS doctrine. LDS doctrine's a moving target. I wouldn't doubt all the kid taught has been taught be a prophet or apostle at some point in the last 180 years, and there's a decent chance it will be taught again at some point in the next 180 years.

Outside maybe the first four articles of faith at their most basic level, I'm not sure there is any teaching of the church that is taught so clearly that it doesn't leave room for very wide interpretation. Nothing you mention is inside that boundary.

[wuapinmon]

I understand the point that he presented Church doctrine incorrectly.

At the same time, though, I think it's funny that with these entirely abstract and unknowable things like the distinction between the "Light of Christ" and a "Witness from the Holy Ghost" that people like to act like there is a right and wrong answer to these questions.

Sure, there is a position that aligns with Church doctrine and a position that doesn't align with Church doctrine. And in Sacrament Meeting or as a missionary for the Church you should stick to saying things are doctrinal.

But this isn't math. It's all completely abstract and unknowable, right? The only people I worry about are the people who think they can describe with great detail the fine distinctions between the Light of Christ and the Witness of the Holy Ghost -- they are the crazy ones.

NOMENCLATURE IS IMPORTANT!

[statman]

15 years ago I was a doctrinal nazi. A few years ago Tex accused me of being a doctrinal gladfly. Nowadays, I barely qualify for posting as a LDS. But here is my take.

SU is closer to the truth than he knows when he says there is no LDS doctrine. LDS doctrine's a moving target. I wouldn't doubt all the kid taught has been taught be a prophet or apostle at some point in the last 180 years, and there's a decent chance it will be taught again at some point in the next 180 years.

Outside maybe the first four articles of faith at their most basic level, I'm not sure there is any teaching of the church that is taught so clearly that it doesn't leave room for very wide interpretation. Nothing you mention is inside that boundary.

The problem was that he was the one drawing the line in the sand - and unfortunately, his line was drawn entirely on a misinterpretation of part of what BPK had said, and in direct conflict with probably a couple dozen scriptures that I could think up in 5 or 10 minutes - namely, that it's the Light of Christ that bears testimony of the truth, not the Holy Ghost. If there had been some gray area to what he had said, the SP would have let it stand. But if absolutely false doctrine is being taught, it's his responsibility to correct it. And he did a pretty darned good job of doing it - I seriously doubt the kid knew he was having his 20 minute dissertation completely undone by the SP. I doubt that 90% of the congregation understood that that's what was going on either...

The biggest problem with the kids talk was that it was well prepared, well practiced, and doctrinally wrong. It would have been a much better situation if the kid were just unprepared or clearly uncertain or ambiguous with the doctrine.

When what you're talking about flies directly in the face of Moroni 10: 4 & 5, you probably ought to start your research for your talk over again...

[TripletDaddy]

I'm lying here on the living room floor right next to the roaring fireplace. I used the cowboy/jeff Lebowski recipe for cooking ribs, including the final grilling outside in 30 degree weather. Spent the evening putting together some Lego kits with my kids. I'm not going into work tomorrow so I will stay up late watching a couple of old Peter sellers movies, probably going to laugh my head off in the process.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I couldn't care less whether it is the light of christ or the gift of the holy ghost that testifies of truth.

Come to think of it, I may make some of lebowski's ginger snaps tonight, too. We have a bunch of vanilla ice cream left over from this weekend. Yum!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Weird. I hear false doctrine all the time at church. I wonder why the SP bothered to humiliate the kid.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm lying here on the living room floor right next to the roaring fireplace. I used the cowboy/jeff Lebowski recipe for cooking ribs, including the final grilling outside in 30 degree weather. Spent the evening putting together some Lego kits with my kids. I'm not going into work tomorrow so I will stay up late watching a couple of old Peter sellers movies, probably going to laugh my head off in the process.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I couldn't care less whether it is the light of christ or the gift of the holy ghost that testifies of truth.

Come to think of it, I may make some of lebowski's ginger snaps tonight, too. We have a bunch of vanilla ice cream left over from this weekend. Yum!

[Coach McGuirk]

We had a RM speaker entertain us in my in-laws' ward. He shared stories from his mission in Peoria, IL, and then ended by sharing the story of "The Room", complete with the false antecedent about the kid who wrote it two weeks before he died, with some nice LDS twists added in.

You can read the full story here, complete with delicious irony.

So all of the room is true, but he plagiarized it. Ha!

[statman]

Weird. I hear false doctrine all the time at church. I wonder why the SP bothered to humiliate the kid.

If you'd bother to read above, you'd know the answer to your query.

1) The highly doubt the kid was humiliated in the slightest. I doubt he even understood that anything he said was contradicted by the SP.

2) The kid left no wiggle room to let it go. He took hard lines in how he interpreted things, and he was clearly and plainly anti-doctrinal/anti-scriptural in virtually all the doctrinal points he made in his talk.

I've also heard plenty of false/unrevealed doctrine preached from the pulpit in sacrament meeting. But this talk was unique. It wasn't just that it was false or non-doctrinal - it was anti-doctrinal. Virtually each of the points he talked about were directly opposed to the doctrine of the Church and to very plain scripture. The scriptures say X and he said it was Y. Korrihor would have had a hard time outdoing this kid. Seriously.

With a family of week-long converts in the congregation, plus another family in our ward moving quickly toward baptism, it's especially important to get the basic doctrine right - and to not contradict what they're (HOPEFULLY?) being taught currently by missionaries.

To digest his talk and try to give an explanation for what he said as opposed to what the actual doctrine on the subject says - I think he's had a hard time delineating between the influence and role of the Holy Ghost prior to baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. And there are some areas where confusion and uncertainty could definitely come in. So he made up a delineation that doesn't exist - before baptism, it's NOT the influence of the Holy Ghost, but the Light of Christ that is responsible for people gaining testimonies of the truthfulness of scripture, Christ's atonement, etc, is just plain wrong. Many, many scriptures (and the agreed doctrine as taught in any manual that anyone has ever released) say that it IS the Holy Ghost. This is not a trivial point - it's the prime role of one of the Godhead. It's a major part of LDS doctrine.

[YOhio]

I'm lying here on the living room floor right next to the roaring fireplace. I used the cowboy/jeff Lebowski recipe for cooking ribs, including the final grilling outside in 30 degree weather. Spent the evening putting together some Lego kits with my kids. I'm not going into work tomorrow so I will stay up late watching a couple of old Peter sellers movies, probably going to laugh my head off in the process.

Do you have a link handy? Ribs sound perfect for New Years.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If you'd bother to read above, you'd know the answer to your query.

1) The highly doubt the kid was humiliated in the slightest. I doubt he even understood that anything he said was contradicted by the SP.

2) The kid left no wiggle room to let it go. He took hard lines in how he interpreted things, and he was clearly and plainly anti-doctrinal/anti-scriptural in virtually all the doctrinal points he made in his talk.

I've also heard plenty of false/unrevealed doctrine preached from the pulpit in sacrament meeting. But this talk was unique. It wasn't just that it was false or non-doctrinal - it was anti-doctrinal. Virtually each of the points he talked about were directly opposed to the doctrine of the Church and to very plain scripture. The scriptures say X and he said it was Y. Korrihor would have had a hard time outdoing this kid. Seriously.

With a family of week-long converts in the congregation, plus another family in our ward moving quickly toward baptism, it's especially important to get the basic doctrine right - and to not contradict what they're (HOPEFULLY?) being taught currently by missionaries.

To digest his talk and try to give an explanation for what he said as opposed to what the actual doctrine on the subject says - I think he's had a hard time delineating between the influence and role of the Holy Ghost prior to baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. And there are some areas where confusion and uncertainty could definitely come in. So he made up a delineation that doesn't exist - before baptism, it's NOT the influence of the Holy Ghost, but the Light of Christ that is responsible for people gaining testimonies of the truthfulness of scripture, Christ's atonement, etc, is just plain wrong. Many, many scriptures (and the agreed doctrine as taught in any manual that anyone has ever released) say that it IS the Holy Ghost. This is not a trivial point - it's the prime role of one of the Godhead. It's a major part of LDS doctrine.

By golly, we wouldn't want those new converts to think it was the light of Christ stirring within them. Mayhem could ensue.