FAIR - Contribuições do utilizador [pt]

Utilizador:InProgress/Website reviews/Kitchen1

2009-07-28T18:36:54Z

PaulMcNabb: /* The Brethren have "little, if any time for deep study of controversial LDS Church history?" */

__NOTOC__
=Website review: ''StayLDS.com''=
{{Epigraph|I have now served in the general councils of this Church for 45 years. I have served as an Assistant to the Twelve, as a member of the Twelve, as a Counselor in the First Presidency, and now for eight years as President. I want to give you my testimony that although I have sat in literally thousands of meetings where Church policies and programs have been discussed, I have never been in one where the guidance of the Lord was not sought nor where there was any desire on the part of anyone present to advocate or do anything which would be injurious or coercive to anyone. The book of Revelation declares: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” ({{s||Revelations|3|15–16}})....This is His work. He established it. He has revealed its doctrine. He has outlined its practices. He created its government. It is His work and His kingdom, and He has said, “They who are not for me are against me” ({{s|2|Nephi|10|16}}). —Gordon B. Hinckley, “Loyalty,” Ensign, May 2003, 58}}

{{Epigraph|Even though the brethren themselves often set things up as "all or nothing," "true or false," "legitimate or a complete fraud," you do not have to slavishly bow to these blatantly false dichotomies. —The author of Staylds.com'' (<nowiki>http://staylds.com/docs/HowToStay.html</nowiki>)}}

{{Epigraph|Don't think of it as God's one and only true and perfect church while all others as abominations. If you think that way, the church will always fall short. Instead, think of it as a bunch of men (and a few women -- in terms of leadership) who are just trying their best to fulfill their callings while balancing work, family, and personal stuff -- and stumbling a great deal along the way. Don't think of its leaders as having a direct, telephone-like communication line with God. They probably don't. —The author of Staylds.com'', setting up some false dichotomies of his own. (<nowiki>http://staylds.com/docs/HowToStay.html</nowiki>)}}
{{parabreak}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''StayLDS.com''==
{{Epigraph|I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. —Rev. 3: 15-16}}
{{parabreak}}

The website is a study in how to be a lukewarm member of the Church. We agree with the web site's evaluation of how some members are shaken as a result of their fundamentalist views. We do not agree with the formula presented for dealing with it.

===The "Brethren's dilemma"===
The site discusses what it calls the "the situation of LDS General Authorities," and implies that they are lying. It portrays General Authorities as remaining in the Church for the following reasons:
*The site claims that General Authorities are from multi-generational LDS families.
*The site claims that General Authorities' "social status" is inextricably tied to the "church's exclusive truthfulness."
*The site claims that General Authorities are too busy to study "controversial LDS Church history."
*They state that the Church "once made a sincere attempt at openness and full disclosure" of Church history, and then gave up because of "decreased activity and commitment."
*The site claims that General Authorities do not dispute anything taught by past Church leaders because they do not want to "erode their own basis of power and influence."
*The site casts doubt upon the Brethren's sincerity by stating "Assuming that the brethren are sincere believers in both the truthfulness of the church, and in its goodness," that they play a balancing game of member retention by deliberately avoiding tough questions.
It is significant to note that nothing in the list above credits the Brethren for being committed to the Church because they sincerely have testimonies of Jesus Christ and the work that they are performing. Consider Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf's definition of a testimony. Elder Uchtdorf notes that,
<blockquote>
The testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is ''the most powerful motivating force in our lives.'' Jesus repeatedly emphasized the power of good thoughts and proper motives: “Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not” ({{s||DC|6|36}})....a testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ will always include these clear and simple truths
*God lives. He is our loving Father in Heaven, and we are His children.
*Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and the Savior of the world.
*Joseph Smith is the prophet of God through whom the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored in the latter days.
*The Book of Mormon is the word of God.
*President Gordon B. Hinckley, his counselors, and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are the prophets, seers, and revelators in our day. 
—Dieter F. Uchtdorf, [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=66900d034ceae010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “The Power of a Personal Testimony,”] ''Ensign'', Nov 2006, 37–39 {{ea}}
</blockquote>
The "Brethren's dilemma" presented by the web site completely ignores the Brethren's own stated motivations for the work that they do, and therefore implies that they are lying. Elder Uchtdorf's description of his own motivations is quite at odds with that presented by the web site.

===The Brethren have "little, if any time for deep study of controversial LDS Church history?"===
"StayLDS" believes that the General Authorities are "simply not aware" of things that ''the site's authors'' are aware of,
<blockquote>
In the end, we are quite convinced that a majority of [the General Authorities] are simply not aware of peep stones, polyandry, Adam/God theory, blood atonement, the Danites, etc. Of course they have heard these terms throughout their lives, but they would have no real impetus, and most importantly, no time to study them deeply. They are super-busy men, and in their minds, the church is true -- so why dig much deeper? —StayLDS.com
</blockquote>
Why, then, has a Church magazine taught our children that Joseph translated using a "brown rock" called a "seer stone?"
{{Epigraph|To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.” Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone. — “A Peaceful Heart,” ''Friend'', Sep 1974, 7 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=5250e07368d9b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}}}

Why did a Church magazine teach our children that there was a group of Mormons called the "Danites" who attacked non-members?
{{Epigraph|One Mormon, Sampson Avard, formed a group, called the Danites, to seek revenge on the Missourians. But when the Danites attacked the nonmembers, it only gave them more reason to distrust the Saints. —Sherrie Johnson, “Persecutions in Missouri,” ''Friend'', Jul 1993, 47 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=042555faa5cab010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}}}

Why did a Church magazine talk about the use of the "[[Blood atonement|blood atonement]]" and polygamy in early anti-Mormon fiction?
{{Epigraph|Furthermore, what people heard about the Mormons as they gossiped over the back fence or sat in the barbershop was often twisted and shaped to appeal to the popular appetite for the lurid and sensational: secret rites, priestly orders, blood atonement, polygamy, and white slavery. —Neal E. Lambert and Richard H. Cracroft, “Through Gentile Eyes: A Hundred Years of the Mormon in Fiction,” New Era, Mar 1972, 14 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=6abc18e7c379b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}}}

Why did a Church magazine publish Spencer W. Kimball's repudiation of the Adam-God theory?
{{Epigraph|We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine. —Spencer W. Kimball, “Our Own Liahona,” Ensign, Nov 1976, 77 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=5fc6fd758096b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}}}

In fact, the only one of the items listed that does not come up in a search on lds.org is "polyandry," yet there are plenty of references to polygamy. So why is polyandry or polygamy not a commonly discussed subject in the Church? To answer that question, we once again refer to an official ''Church'' publication:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage. —''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii
</blockquote>

Yet, "StayLDS" insists that the ''General Authorities'' are "simply not aware of peep stones," the Danites, the Adam-God theory, polyandry/polygamy or "blood atonement." The leaders of the Church have apparently "heard these terms throughout their lives," yet they are assumed to be ''unaware'' of their meaning? The approach taken to this subject by the "StayLDS" website is absolutely absurd.
So, are we to believe that the Church places these things in the official ''children's'' magazine, yet those leading the Church are ''unaware of its history?
{{ReadMore|Censorship and revision of LDS history}}

===Emphasizing the church's 'one trueness' is simply "an essential component of survival?"===
According to "StayLDS"
{{Epigraph|LDS Church leaders believe that emphasizing the church's "one trueness" is an essential component of survival.... Finally, what in the heck does it mean to call a church "true"? What an odd usage of the word. To us, it's like calling a ham sandwich "true." It just doesn't mean anything. —Staylds.com}}
No, LDS Church leaders ''believe'' that this ''is'' the only true and living church of Jesus Christ. Period.
*"My testimony that this is the true Church began in my childhood. But I received a powerful, certain witness before I was eight, even before I was baptized, that I was hearing a servant of God in the true Church of Jesus Christ." (Henry B. Eyring, “The True Church,” Friend, Mar 2009, 2–3)
*"You will be given opportunities, such as through the inspired messages of this conference, to find the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ, and you will recognize that Church." (Richard G. Scott, “Happiness Now and Forever,” Ensign, Nov 1979, 70)
*"The position that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church upon the face of the earth is fundamental." (Boyd K. Packer, “The Only True and Living Church,” Ensign, Dec 1971, 40)
*"My intent is to assert with testimony and persuasion of scripture the reasons there can be only one Lord, one acceptable faith, one baptism, and one true church." (Delbert L. Stapley, “What Constitutes the True Church,” Ensign, May 1977, 21)
*"I testify to you that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith, and that he thereafter received revelations, powers, and keys, and was commanded to organize again on earth the Lord’s one true church." (Joseph Fielding Smith, “A Call to Serve,” New Era, Nov 1971, 5)
*"And so we have to be sure and prepare ourselves and know that we have found that one and only true church that Paul spoke about." (LeGrand Richards, “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism,” Ensign, May 1975, 95)
There is simply no ambiguity here. The leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints most firmly believe and teach that it is the ''one true Church of Jesus Christ''. We teach this. We believe this. It does not mean that we ought to disrespect others' beliefs, but we believe in the uniqueness of the Church nonetheless. This will not evolve or change in the future—it is a fundamental concept upon which the Church is built.

===The "buffet Mormon"===
The web site encourages members to choose which Church teachings they wish to accept and reject the rest. Take, for example, the way the site redefines the law of tithing,
{{Epigraph|[I]f you're not comfortable giving 10%, consider giving 5%. If you can't muster 5%, give what you feel the church is worth to you in your life. And if you do drop your tithing to 5% or 1%, we strongly recommend (from experience) that you continue trying to obeying the law, and instead divert the other X% to really worthwhile charitable organizations. There are lots of good causes out there: cleft palate repair, children with AIDS, homeless shelters, the Red Cross, environmental movements, NPR and PBS, or other forums, publications, or programs that are important to your spiritual development. The LDS Church Humanitarian fund and the Perpetual Education Fund also seem like very worthwhile places to contribute, if you are comfortable doing so. So while we're not in any way encouraging a decrease in tithing to the church, we are all big believers in the law of the tithe, and are quite confident that "God" will appreciate any contribution you make to any organization that seeks to relieve suffering. We're also relatively sure that the church would warmly accept 5% rather than 0% (if it comes to this). —StayLDS.com}}

So, essentially, we are told that a full and honest tithe—what we are asked if we are paying during the temple recommend interview—is apparently so undefined that we don't ''really'' need to pay all 10% to the Church! Instead, just about anything goes, including, oddly enough, diverting tithing to the Church's own Humanitarian Fund! Finally, we are told that the Church will "warmly" accept our money regardless of how much we actually decide to contribute. As far as "StayLDS" is concerned, any spiritual element to tithing has been removed—it is simply a matter of paying money to an organization.

The General Authorities have a more direct approach:
*"Tithing is so simple and straightforward a thing. Tithing is paid by faith more than it is by money." (Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Sacred Law of Tithing,” Ensign, Dec 1989, 2)
*"If you are one who has doubted the blessings of tithing, I encourage you to accept the Lord’s invitation to “prove [Him] now herewith.” Pay your tithing." (Robert D. Hales, “Tithing: A Test of Faith with Eternal Blessings,” Liahona, Nov 2002, 26–29)
*"If I did not pay my tithing, I should expect the Lord to withhold His blessings from me. I pay my tithing, not only because it is a law of God, but because I expect a blessing by doing it." (Jeffrey R. Holland, “‘Like a Watered Garden’,” Liahona, Jan 2002, 37–39)
So once again, where "StayLDS" advocates ambiguity, the Brethren show no ambiguity whatsoever.

==="Shelving" or "tossing" the "bad doctrine"===
{{Epigraph|Anyone who has studied LDS Church history will confirm that lots of things that were considered hard, unchangeable doctrine have been completely wiped from the books (e.g., polygamy as a requirement for salvation, blacks as less valiant in the pre-mortal existence, dynastic sealings, multiple baptisms, Adam-God theory, Native Americans as descendants of Lamanites, etc.). So if you don't like a doctrine, just wait a while. Like the weather, it has a good probability of changing anyway (at least over time). —StayLDS.com}}
The purpose of having a living prophet is to direct the Church ''for our time''. In some cases, such as the Adam-God theory, Church leaders ''already'' "shelved" or "tossed" what the web site refers to as "bad doctrine." Do we reject the teachings of Christ because He ended and fulfilled the Law of Moses? We address the specific points mentioned in separate articles:
*[[The only men who become gods are those that practice polygamy?|Polygamy as a requirement for salvation?]]
*[[Blacks and the priesthood/Pre-existence|Blacks portrayed as "less valiant" in the pre-mortal existence?]]
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Marriages to young women|Dynastic sealings to young women]]
*[[Mormon Reformation|Multiple baptisms or rebaptism during the "Mormon reformation"]]
*[[Adam-God|Adam-God theory]]
*[[Amerindians as Lamanites|Native Americans as descendants of Lamanites]]

===Teaching your children that you go to Church simply because you "like it"===
{{Epigraph|We feel it's as good a place as any to seek out spirituality and community. —StayLDS.org}}
If you plan to teach your children that you are a Latter-day Saint because it is "as good a place as any" to have a good social environment, then expect your children to go their separate ways when they are adults.

===Looking elsewhere?===
{{Epigraph|If you are not feeling spiritually filled by your affiliation with the LDS Church, do not hesitate to supplement with other sources. I know many, many active LDS Church members who look to other faith traditions to supplement their spiritual needs. Some look to other Christian denominations or Buddhism to fill a void. Best of all, this approach is even encouraged by LDS scripture, LDS doctrine, and both historical and contemporary comments by LDS General Authorities (references available upon request). StayLDS.com}}
No, the scriptures and LDS General Authorities ''do not'' encourage you to "supplement" your spiritual needs by attending other churches, or by becoming a Buddist!

=Conclusion=
*We object to the site's characterization of the Brethren as being primarily motivated to remain in the Church due to social status, without acknowledgment or regard for their frequently expressed testimonies of the Savior and the work that they are doing.
*We reject the idea that Church leaders are unaware of elements of Church history, while Church magazines include such items.
*We reject the idea that Church leaders only claim that this is the "one true Church" as a means to encourage growth.
*We reject the idea that law of tithing is something that can be arbitrarily redefined as a matter of convenience and comfort.
*We reject the blatantly false statement that the Brethren encourage members to "supplement" their spiritual needs by looking at other religions.
There is one thing that we ''do'' agree with:
{{Epigraph|The "Middle Way of Mormonism" is not for everyone, and is definitely not likely to be sanctioned by church leaders anytime soon. —StayLDS.com}}
Indeed, we might go so far as to say that the "Middle Way of Mormonism"" will ''never'' be sanctioned by Church leaders. Christ did not teach the "middle way" to salvation or exaltation. This does ''not'' mean that we reject those who are challenged in their faith. These matters must be resolved through study and prayer. Unfortunately, the "StayLDS" web site encourages those who harbor doubts or encounter difficult issues to remain silent. This solves nothing. It does not help resolve these issues, and they will only become worse. It is implied that asking "difficult questions" will result in one being ostracized from the Church. However, we believe that questions ought to be asked and answered, and that they can be answered while strengthening the foundation of faith.

Utilizador:InProgress/Website reviews/Kitchen1

2009-07-28T18:34:40Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Website review: StayLDS.com */

__NOTOC__
=Website review: ''StayLDS.com''=
{{Epigraph|I have now served in the general councils of this Church for 45 years. I have served as an Assistant to the Twelve, as a member of the Twelve, as a Counselor in the First Presidency, and now for eight years as President. I want to give you my testimony that although I have sat in literally thousands of meetings where Church policies and programs have been discussed, I have never been in one where the guidance of the Lord was not sought nor where there was any desire on the part of anyone present to advocate or do anything which would be injurious or coercive to anyone. The book of Revelation declares: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” ({{s||Revelations|3|15–16}})....This is His work. He established it. He has revealed its doctrine. He has outlined its practices. He created its government. It is His work and His kingdom, and He has said, “They who are not for me are against me” ({{s|2|Nephi|10|16}}). —Gordon B. Hinckley, “Loyalty,” Ensign, May 2003, 58}}

{{Epigraph|Even though the brethren themselves often set things up as "all or nothing," "true or false," "legitimate or a complete fraud," you do not have to slavishly bow to these blatantly false dichotomies. —The author of Staylds.com'' (<nowiki>http://staylds.com/docs/HowToStay.html</nowiki>)}}

{{Epigraph|Don't think of it as God's one and only true and perfect church while all others as abominations. If you think that way, the church will always fall short. Instead, think of it as a bunch of men (and a few women -- in terms of leadership) who are just trying their best to fulfill their callings while balancing work, family, and personal stuff -- and stumbling a great deal along the way. Don't think of its leaders as having a direct, telephone-like communication line with God. They probably don't. —The author of Staylds.com'', setting up some false dichotomies of his own. (<nowiki>http://staylds.com/docs/HowToStay.html</nowiki>)}}
{{parabreak}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''StayLDS.com''==
{{Epigraph|I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. —Rev. 3: 15-16}}
{{parabreak}}

The website is a study in how to be a lukewarm member of the Church. We agree with the web site's evaluation of how some members are shaken as a result of their fundamentalist views. We do not agree with the formula presented for dealing with it.

===The "Brethren's dilemma"===
The site discusses what it calls the "the situation of LDS General Authorities," and implies that they are lying. It portrays General Authorities as remaining in the Church for the following reasons:
*The site claims that General Authorities are from multi-generational LDS families.
*The site claims that General Authorities' "social status" is inextricably tied to the "church's exclusive truthfulness."
*The site claims that General Authorities are too busy to study "controversial LDS Church history."
*They state that the Church "once made a sincere attempt at openness and full disclosure" of Church history, and then gave up because of "decreased activity and commitment."
*The site claims that General Authorities do not dispute anything taught by past Church leaders because they do not want to "erode their own basis of power and influence."
*The site casts doubt upon the Brethren's sincerity by stating "Assuming that the brethren are sincere believers in both the truthfulness of the church, and in its goodness," that they play a balancing game of member retention by deliberately avoiding tough questions.
It is significant to note that nothing in the list above credits the Brethren for being committed to the Church because they sincerely have testimonies of Jesus Christ and the work that they are performing. Consider Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf's definition of a testimony. Elder Uchtdorf notes that,
<blockquote>
The testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is ''the most powerful motivating force in our lives.'' Jesus repeatedly emphasized the power of good thoughts and proper motives: “Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not” ({{s||DC|6|36}})....a testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ will always include these clear and simple truths
*God lives. He is our loving Father in Heaven, and we are His children.
*Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and the Savior of the world.
*Joseph Smith is the prophet of God through whom the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored in the latter days.
*The Book of Mormon is the word of God.
*President Gordon B. Hinckley, his counselors, and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are the prophets, seers, and revelators in our day. 
—Dieter F. Uchtdorf, [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=66900d034ceae010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “The Power of a Personal Testimony,”] ''Ensign'', Nov 2006, 37–39 {{ea}}
</blockquote>
The "Brethren's dilemma" presented by the web site completely ignores the Brethren's own stated motivations for the work that they do, and therefore implies that they are lying. Elder Uchtdorf's description of his own motivations is quite at odds with that presented by the web site.

===The Brethren have "little, if any time for deep study of controversial LDS Church history?"===
"StayLDS" believes that the General Authorities are "simply not aware" of things that ''the site's authors'' are aware of,
<blockquote>
In the end, we are quite convinced that a majority of [the General Authorities] are simply not aware of peep stones, polyandry, Adam/God theory, blood atonement, the Danites, etc. Of course they have heard these terms throughout their lives, but they would have no real impetus, and most importantly, no time to study them deeply. They are super-busy men, and in their minds, the church is true -- so why dig much deeper? —StayLDS.com
</blockquote>
Why, then, has a Church magazine taught our children that Joseph translated using a "brown rock" called a "seer stone?"
{{Epigraph|To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.” Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone. — “A Peaceful Heart,” ''Friend'', Sep 1974, 7 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=5250e07368d9b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}}}

Why did a Church magazine teach our children that there was a group of Mormons called the "Danites" who attacked non-members?
{{Epigraph|One Mormon, Sampson Avard, formed a group, called the Danites, to seek revenge on the Missourians. But when the Danites attacked the nonmembers, it only gave them more reason to distrust the Saints. —Sherrie Johnson, “Persecutions in Missouri,” ''Friend'', Jul 1993, 47 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=042555faa5cab010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}}}

Why did a Church magazine talk about the use of the "[[Blood atonement|blood atonement]]" and polygamy in early anti-Mormon fiction?
{{Epigraph|Furthermore, what people heard about the Mormons as they gossiped over the back fence or sat in the barbershop was often twisted and shaped to appeal to the popular appetite for the lurid and sensational: secret rites, priestly orders, blood atonement, polygamy, and white slavery. —Neal E. Lambert and Richard H. Cracroft, “Through Gentile Eyes: A Hundred Years of the Mormon in Fiction,” New Era, Mar 1972, 14 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=6abc18e7c379b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}}}

Why did a Church magazine publish Spencer W. Kimball's repudiation of the Adam-God theory?
{{Epigraph|We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine. —Spencer W. Kimball, “Our Own Liahona,” Ensign, Nov 1976, 77 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=5fc6fd758096b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}}}

In fact, the only one of the items listed that does not come up in a search on lds.org is "polyandry," yet there are plenty of references to polygamy. So why is polyandry or polygamy not a commonly discussed subject in the Church? To answer that question, we once again refer to an official ''Church'' publication:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage. —''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii
</blockquote>

Yet, "StayLDS" insists that the ''General Authorities'' are "simply not aware of peep stones," the Danites, the Adam-God theory, polyandry/polygamy or "blood atonement." The leaders of the Church have apparently "heard these terms throughout their lives," yet they are assumed to be ''unaware'' of their meaning? The approach taken to this subject by the "StayLDS" website is absolutely absurd.
So, are we to believe that the Church places these things in the official ''children's'' magazine, yet those leading the Church are ''unaware of its history?
{{ReadMore|Censorship and revision of LDS history}}

===Emphasizing the church's 'one trueness' is simply "an essential component of survival?"===
According to "StayLDS"
{{Epigraph|LDS Church leaders believe that emphasizing the church's "one trueness" is an essential component of survival.... Finally, what in the heck does it mean to call a church "true"? What an odd usage of the word. To us, it's like calling a ham sandwich "true." It just doesn't mean anything. —Staylds.com}}
No, LDS Church leaders ''believe'' that this ''is'' the only true and living church of Jesus Christ. Period.
*"My testimony that this is the true Church began in my childhood. But I received a powerful, certain witness before I was eight, even before I was baptized, that I was hearing a servant of God in the true Church of Jesus Christ." (Henry B. Eyring, “The True Church,” Friend, Mar 2009, 2–3)
*"You will be given opportunities, such as through the inspired messages of this conference, to find the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ, and you will recognize that Church." (Richard G. Scott, “Happiness Now and Forever,” Ensign, Nov 1979, 70)
*"The position that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church upon the face of the earth is fundamental." (Boyd K. Packer, “The Only True and Living Church,” Ensign, Dec 1971, 40)
*"My intent is to assert with testimony and persuasion of scripture the reasons there can be only one Lord, one acceptable faith, one baptism, and one true church." (Delbert L. Stapley, “What Constitutes the True Church,” Ensign, May 1977, 21)
*"I testify to you that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith, and that he thereafter received revelations, powers, and keys, and was commanded to organize again on earth the Lord’s one true church." (Joseph Fielding Smith, “A Call to Serve,” New Era, Nov 1971, 5)
*"And so we have to be sure and prepare ourselves and know that we have found that one and only true church that Paul spoke about." (LeGrand Richards, “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism,” Ensign, May 1975, 95)
There is simply no ambiguity here. The leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints most firmly believe and teach that it is the ''one true Church of Jesus Christ''. We teach this. We believe this. It does not mean that we ought to disrespect others' beliefs, but we believe in the uniqueness of the Church nonetheless. This will not evolve or change in the future—it is a fundamental concept upon which the Church is built.

===The "buffet Mormon"===
The web site encourages members to choose which Church teachings they wish to accept and reject the rest. Take, for example, the way the site redefines the law of tithing,
{{Epigraph|[I]f you're not comfortable giving 10%, consider giving 5%. If you can't muster 5%, give what you feel the church is worth to you in your life. And if you do drop your tithing to 5% or 1%, we strongly recommend (from experience) that you continue trying to obeying the law, and instead divert the other X% to really worthwhile charitable organizations. There are lots of good causes out there: cleft palate repair, children with AIDS, homeless shelters, the Red Cross, environmental movements, NPR and PBS, or other forums, publications, or programs that are important to your spiritual development. The LDS Church Humanitarian fund and the Perpetual Education Fund also seem like very worthwhile places to contribute, if you are comfortable doing so. So while we're not in any way encouraging a decrease in tithing to the church, we are all big believers in the law of the tithe, and are quite confident that "God" will appreciate any contribution you make to any organization that seeks to relieve suffering. We're also relatively sure that the church would warmly accept 5% rather than 0% (if it comes to this). —StayLDS.com}}

So, essentially, we are told that a full and honest tithe—what we are asked if we are paying during the temple recommend interview—is apparently so undefined that we don't ''really'' need to pay all 10% to the Church! Instead, just about anything goes, including, oddly enough, diverting tithing to the Church's own Humanitarian Fund! Finally, we are told that the Church will "warmly" accept our money regardless of how much we actually decide to contribute. As far as "StayLDS" is concerned, any spiritual element to tithing has been removed—it is simply a matter of paying money to an organization.

The General Authorities have a more direct approach:
*"Tithing is so simple and straightforward a thing. Tithing is paid by faith more than it is by money." (Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Sacred Law of Tithing,” Ensign, Dec 1989, 2)
*"If you are one who has doubted the blessings of tithing, I encourage you to accept the Lord’s invitation to “prove [Him] now herewith.” Pay your tithing." (Robert D. Hales, “Tithing: A Test of Faith with Eternal Blessings,” Liahona, Nov 2002, 26–29)
*"If I did not pay my tithing, I should expect the Lord to withhold His blessings from me. I pay my tithing, not only because it is a law of God, but because I expect a blessing by doing it." (Jeffrey R. Holland, “‘Like a Watered Garden’,” Liahona, Jan 2002, 37–39)
So once again, where "StayLDS" advocates ambiguity, the Brethren show no ambiguity whatsoever.

==="Shelving" or "tossing" the "bad doctrine"===
{{Epigraph|Anyone who has studied LDS Church history will confirm that lots of things that were considered hard, unchangeable doctrine have been completely wiped from the books (e.g., polygamy as a requirement for salvation, blacks as less valiant in the pre-mortal existence, dynastic sealings, multiple baptisms, Adam-God theory, Native Americans as descendants of Lamanites, etc.). So if you don't like a doctrine, just wait a while. Like the weather, it has a good probability of changing anyway (at least over time). —StayLDS.com}}
The purpose of having a living prophet is to direct the Church ''for our time''. In some cases, such as the Adam-God theory, Church leaders ''already'' "shelved" or "tossed" what the web site refers to as "bad doctrine." Do we reject the teachings of Christ because He ended and fulfilled the Law of Moses? We address the specific points mentioned in separate articles:
*[[The only men who become gods are those that practice polygamy?|Polygamy as a requirement for salvation?]]
*[[Blacks and the priesthood/Pre-existence|Blacks portrayed as "less valiant" in the pre-mortal existence?]]
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Marriages to young women|Dynastic sealings to young women]]
*[[Mormon Reformation|Multiple baptisms or rebaptism during the "Mormon reformation"]]
*[[Adam-God|Adam-God theory]]
*[[Amerindians as Lamanites|Native Americans as descendants of Lamanites]]

===Teaching your children that you go to Church simply because you "like it"===
{{Epigraph|We feel it's as good a place as any to seek out spirituality and community. —StayLDS.org}}
If you plan to teach your children that you are a Latter-day Saint because it is "as good a place as any" to have a good social environment, then expect your children to go their separate ways when they are adults.

===Looking elsewhere?===
{{Epigraph|If you are not feeling spiritually filled by your affiliation with the LDS Church, do not hesitate to supplement with other sources. I know many, many active LDS Church members who look to other faith traditions to supplement their spiritual needs. Some look to other Christian denominations or Buddhism to fill a void. Best of all, this approach is even encouraged by LDS scripture, LDS doctrine, and both historical and contemporary comments by LDS General Authorities (references available upon request). StayLDS.com}}
No, the scriptures and LDS General Authorities ''do not'' encourage you to "supplement" your spiritual needs by attending other churches, or by becoming a Buddist!

=Conclusion=
*We object to the site's characterization of the Brethren as being primarily motivated to remain in the Church due to social status, without acknowledgment or regard for their frequently expressed testimonies of the Savior and the work that they are doing.
*We reject the idea that Church leaders are unaware of elements of Church history, while Church magazines include such items.
*We reject the idea that Church leaders only claim that this is the "one true Church" as a means to encourage growth.
*We reject the idea that law of tithing is something that can be arbitrarily redefined as a matter of convenience and comfort.
*We reject the blatantly false statement that the Brethren encourage members to "supplement" their spiritual needs by looking at other religions.
There is one thing that we ''do'' agree with:
{{Epigraph|The "Middle Way of Mormonism" is not for everyone, and is definitely not likely to be sanctioned by church leaders anytime soon. —StayLDS.com}}
Indeed, we might go so far as to say that the "Middle Way of Mormonism"" will ''never'' be sanctioned by Church leaders. Christ did not teach the "middle way" to salvation or exaltation. This does ''not'' mean that we reject those who are challenged in their faith. These matters must be resolved through study and prayer. Unfortunately, the "StayLDS" web site encourages those who harbor doubts or encounter difficult issues to remain silent. This solves nothing. It does not help resolve these issues, and they will only become worse. It is implied that asking "difficult questions" will result in one being ostracized from the Church. However, we believe that questions ought to be asked and answered, and that they can be answered while strengthening the foundation of faith.

Utilizador:SteveWilloughby/Sandbox

2008-12-23T02:17:31Z

PaulMcNabb: fixed strikeout. sorry...

'''Sandbox for "FAIR Does Not Speak For the Church"'''

{{FAQPortal}}
{{Draft}} {{Question}}

==Question==

FAIR's articles, responses to [http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php "Ask the Apologist"] queries, etc., contain a disclaimer to the effect that FAIR volunteers and authors are not speaking authoritatively for the Church (or even for FAIR itself) but only giving their personal opinion or perspective on each issue or question.

Why should anyone listen to FAIR, then, if they can't speak with authority for the Church? Who can one turn to for the authorized, "final answer" on every topic?

==Answer==

First of all, FAIR is an organization completely independent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and is not owned or endorsed by the Church as an official mouthpiece, so FAIR ''cannot'' claim any official status. <strike>In the interest of full disclosure, and so as not to cause any confusion on this matter, FAIR is careful to explicitly disclaim any such status.</strike> From the FAIR [http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAQ article] we read:

<blockquote>
<strike>We are not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and are therefore not doing this under the direction of the priesthood. . . .
</strike>
We try very hard to not give the impression that we are speaking for the Church in any way. We are not affiliated with the Church. We therefore try to avoid doctrinal declarations. Most of the time it isn't an issue as we are discussing things from a historical or scholarly point of view. Occasionally we get into discussions of doctrine when we feel our beliefs as Latter-day Saints have been misrepresented. At those times the writers are speaking from their own experience and beliefs.
</blockquote>

This seems to raise two questions in our readers' minds from time to time, <strike>namely, "What value are FAIR's answers if they lack the authority to speak definitively for the Church?" and "Why does the Church itself leave room for private speculation or discussion on various doctrinal topics rather than give the official answers once and for all?" (Or, to put the second question a different way, "If FAIR isn't an 'official' voice for the church, who else should I turn to in order to get the real, official answer to my question?")</strike> which we will address separately below.

===Of what value are FAIR's answers if they lack authority to speak for the Church?===

Only the Church's duly authorized agents can speak officially on behalf of the Church or give official pronouncements which establish doctrine that is binding upon the Church <strike>(the latter case, specifically coming from the First Presidency)</strike>. However, is this necessarily a problem when considering answers coming from a group such as FAIR?

There are many questions that people have, and there is plenty of benefit to having brothers and sisters in the faith "reason together" and learn from one another, and not expect to simply look to someone to give the one, final answer to any question. In this author's opinion, the Lord and Church leaders are wise to leave us to the exercise of working out these things and developing our mental and spiritual capacities to gain more understanding.

<strike>Does an answer about doctrine or Church history necessarily need to have an official stamp of approval from the Church hierarchy to be helpful, factual or true? Of course not, so there is still much room for organizations such as FAIR to be a great resource without needing to speak ''for'' the Church in some sort of officially binding way.</strike>
While the responses to issues offered by FAIR volunteers are not official statements by the Church, we believe them to be consistent with the Church's official teachings and are given by faithful, active, believing LDS members. These responses need not carry an official endorsement to be true or helpful in answering questions.

<strike>The Church exists to serve an extremely vital role, but a fairly specific and narrowly-defined one. The number of things the Church must take an official position about are limited to the core of the gospel of Jesus Christ and what bears directly on their work in administering the affairs of the Church. That leaves a lot of room for personal study and growth. We think we can help each other with a great deal of that, even if it's not something the Church has felt the need to make a declaration about.</strike>

FAIR's main mission is to answer criticisms about the Church, and we can certainly do so based on what we know, can study, and reason, as well as what the Spirit guides us to say as we prayerfully consider these issues, without necessarily receiving this as an official calling or going to the First Presidency to speak on each and every issue.

===If FAIR is not an official voice for the Church, to whom do I turn for the official answer to my question?===

In the early days of the Church, it was more commonplace for the local members to ask Joseph Smith <strike>various questions and hear</strike> for his teachings on <strike>the matter</strike> various matters. Obviously, the logistics involved in running a church of 500 members is rather different than it is with a church of 13 million, and it isn't possible to expect the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve to be able to teach all the individual members who have questions. The LDS Church, of course, ''does'' make official doctrinal statements but generally only on significantly important "core" issues. There is much room for all of us to study and learn independently and in local groups.

Beyond that, <strike>do we</strike> we do not need a "thus saith the Lord" answer to every question. We at FAIR sustain and support the leaders of the Church and follow their direction in matters of doctrine and the operation of the Church, but that doesn't mean we ''must'' look to someone else to simply provide us with ''the'' answer to every question we have. The Lord Himself commanded us:
<blockquote>
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Verily, I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. . . .
{{ref|dc1}}
</blockquote>
Is it inappropriate to assume that at least some of these good works that we are to be engaged in include studying the gospel and striving to learn more through the scriptures, personal prayer, discussions with each other, and by reading the best books? Along with not expecting us to remain idle until explicitly commanded to do something, the Lord expects us to seek knowledge and learn and grow without simply being told what to think about everything.

Further,
<blockquote>
Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. {{ref|dc2}}
</blockquote>
An important part of the process of gaining this knowledge and intelligence is working diligently to study and learn, and not simply seek to have someone tell us the answers to memorize.

FAIR, <strike>religion </strike>teachers among the membership of the Church, and even our Church leaders have latitude to hold and express their best understanding of various topics, even to publish books (e.g., Elder Bruce R. McConkie's ''Mormon Doctrine''). Since none of these talks, lessons, papers, blogs, conversations, or books have been accepted into the canon, they are not binding as 'the official word of the Church itself.' Does that mean they are useless to help us gain more understanding? No, there's much we can learn from each other, even if we're imperfect in our understanding along the way.

==Conclusion==

FAIR need not speak with the authority of the Church itself, or be an official representative of the Church, in order to provide a useful resource for people to gain a better understanding of Latter-day Saint history and teachings. Further, it is not necessarily correct for us to expect to turn to our Church leaders, particularly the general authorities, for the answer to every single question on a gospel topic.

On many issues, there ''is'' no official Church position, and so there is nothing that an official Church response will provide. In such cases, members are encouraged to use their agency to "study it out in [their] mind" as they seek knowledge and revelation from human and divine sources.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|dc1}}{{s||DC|58|26-28}}
#{{note|dc2}}{{s||DC|130|18-19}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
[http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAIR FAQ] answers the question "How authoritative are the things that you write?"

===External links===
[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine Official LDS Church Newsroom Article] emphasizing that not every statement by church leaders is official doctrine, and that individual members are encouraged to study independently and together to find gospel answers, in addition to following the "core" gospel doctrinal statements official endorsed or canonized by the Church.

[http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Truth Encyclopedia of Mormonism] entry for Truth, which provides some interesting thoughts about what "truth" is. We can all come to a greater understanding of life's truths from many places and sources, not all of which must be official church pronouncements to be "true".

===Printed material===

Utilizador:SteveWilloughby/Sandbox

2008-12-23T02:16:17Z

PaulMcNabb: changed "religion teachers" to just "teachers"---fixed some punctuation.

'''Sandbox for "FAIR Does Not Speak For the Church"'''

{{FAQPortal}}
{{Draft}} {{Question}}

==Question==

FAIR's articles, responses to [http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php "Ask the Apologist"] queries, etc., contain a disclaimer to the effect that FAIR volunteers and authors are not speaking authoritatively for the Church (or even for FAIR itself) but only giving their personal opinion or perspective on each issue or question.

Why should anyone listen to FAIR, then, if they can't speak with authority for the Church? Who can one turn to for the authorized, "final answer" on every topic?

==Answer==

First of all, FAIR is an organization completely independent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and is not owned or endorsed by the Church as an official mouthpiece, so FAIR ''cannot'' claim any official status. <strike>In the interest of full disclosure, and so as not to cause any confusion on this matter, FAIR is careful to explicitly disclaim any such status.</strike> From the FAIR [http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAQ article] we read:

<blockquote>
<strike>We are not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and are therefore not doing this under the direction of the priesthood. . . .
</strike>
We try very hard to not give the impression that we are speaking for the Church in any way. We are not affiliated with the Church. We therefore try to avoid doctrinal declarations. Most of the time it isn't an issue as we are discussing things from a historical or scholarly point of view. Occasionally we get into discussions of doctrine when we feel our beliefs as Latter-day Saints have been misrepresented. At those times the writers are speaking from their own experience and beliefs.
</blockquote>

This seems to raise two questions in our readers' minds from time to time, <strike>namely, "What value are FAIR's answers if they lack the authority to speak definitively for the Church?" and "Why does the Church itself leave room for private speculation or discussion on various doctrinal topics rather than give the official answers once and for all?" (Or, to put the second question a different way, "If FAIR isn't an 'official' voice for the church, who else should I turn to in order to get the real, official answer to my question?")</strike> which we will address separately below.

===Of what value are FAIR's answers if they lack authority to speak for the Church?===

Only the Church's duly authorized agents can speak officially on behalf of the Church or give official pronouncements which establish doctrine that is binding upon the Church <strike>(the latter case, specifically coming from the First Presidency)</strike>. However, is this necessarily a problem when considering answers coming from a group such as FAIR?

There are many questions that people have, and there is plenty of benefit to having brothers and sisters in the faith "reason together" and learn from one another, and not expect to simply look to someone to give the one, final answer to any question. In this author's opinion, the Lord and Church leaders are wise to leave us to the exercise of working out these things and developing our mental and spiritual capacities to gain more understanding.

<strike>Does an answer about doctrine or Church history necessarily need to have an official stamp of approval from the Church hierarchy to be helpful, factual or true? Of course not, so there is still much room for organizations such as FAIR to be a great resource without needing to speak ''for'' the Church in some sort of officially binding way.</strike>
While the responses to issues offered by FAIR volunteers are not official statements by the Church, we believe them to be consistent with the Church's official teachings and are given by faithful, active, believing LDS members. These responses need not carry an official endorsement to be true or helpful in answering questions.

<strike>The Church exists to serve an extremely vital role, but a fairly specific and narrowly-defined one. The number of things the Church must take an official position about are limited to the core of the gospel of Jesus Christ and what bears directly on their work in administering the affairs of the Church. That leaves a lot of room for personal study and growth. We think we can help each other with a great deal of that, even if it's not something the Church has felt the need to make a declaration about.</strike>

FAIR's main mission is to answer criticisms about the Church, and we can certainly do so based on what we know, can study, and reason, as well as what the Spirit guides us to say as we prayerfully consider these issues, without necessarily receiving this as an official calling or going to the First Presidency to speak on each and every issue.

===If FAIR is not an official voice for the Church, to whom do I turn for the official answer to my question?===

In the early days of the Church, it was more commonplace for the local members to ask Joseph Smith <strike>various questions and hear</strike> for his teachings on <strike>the matter</strike> various matters. Obviously, the logistics involved in running a church of 500 members is rather different than it is with a church of 13 million, and it isn't possible to expect the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve to be able to teach all the individual members who have questions. The LDS Church, of course, ''does'' make official doctrinal statements but generally only on significantly important "core" issues. There is much room for all of us to study and learn independently and in local groups.

Beyond that, <strike>do we</strike> we do not need a "thus saith the Lord" answer to every question. We at FAIR sustain and support the leaders of the Church and follow their direction in matters of doctrine and the operation of the Church, but that doesn't mean we ''must'' look to someone else to simply provide us with ''the'' answer to every question we have. The Lord Himself commanded us:
<blockquote>
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Verily, I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. . . .
{{ref|dc1}}
</blockquote>
Is it inappropriate to assume that at least some of these good works that we are to be engaged in include studying the gospel and striving to learn more through the scriptures, personal prayer, discussions with each other, and by reading the best books? Along with not expecting us to remain idle until explicitly commanded to do something, the Lord expects us to seek knowledge and learn and grow without simply being told what to think about everything.

Further,
<blockquote>
Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. {{ref|dc2}}
</blockquote>
An important part of the process of gaining this knowledge and intelligence is working diligently to study and learn, and not simply seek to have someone tell us the answers to memorize.

FAIR, <strike>religion <strike>teachers among the membership of the Church, and even our Church leaders have latitude to hold and express their best understanding of various topics, even to publish books (e.g., Elder Bruce R. McConkie's ''Mormon Doctrine''). Since none of these talks, lessons, papers, blogs, conversations, or books have been accepted into the canon, they are not binding as 'the official word of the Church itself.' Does that mean they are useless to help us gain more understanding? No, there's much we can learn from each other, even if we're imperfect in our understanding along the way.

==Conclusion==

FAIR need not speak with the authority of the Church itself, or be an official representative of the Church, in order to provide a useful resource for people to gain a better understanding of Latter-day Saint history and teachings. Further, it is not necessarily correct for us to expect to turn to our Church leaders, particularly the general authorities, for the answer to every single question on a gospel topic.

On many issues, there ''is'' no official Church position, and so there is nothing that an official Church response will provide. In such cases, members are encouraged to use their agency to "study it out in [their] mind" as they seek knowledge and revelation from human and divine sources.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|dc1}}{{s||DC|58|26-28}}
#{{note|dc2}}{{s||DC|130|18-19}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
[http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAIR FAQ] answers the question "How authoritative are the things that you write?"

===External links===
[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine Official LDS Church Newsroom Article] emphasizing that not every statement by church leaders is official doctrine, and that individual members are encouraged to study independently and together to find gospel answers, in addition to following the "core" gospel doctrinal statements official endorsed or canonized by the Church.

[http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Truth Encyclopedia of Mormonism] entry for Truth, which provides some interesting thoughts about what "truth" is. We can all come to a greater understanding of life's truths from many places and sources, not all of which must be official church pronouncements to be "true".

===Printed material===

Utilizador:SteveWilloughby/Sandbox

2008-12-23T02:10:04Z

PaulMcNabb: punctuation...

'''Sandbox for "FAIR Does Not Speak For the Church"'''

{{FAQPortal}}
{{Draft}} {{Question}}

==Question==

FAIR's articles, responses to [http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php "Ask the Apologist"] queries, etc., contain a disclaimer to the effect that FAIR volunteers and authors are not speaking authoritatively for the Church (or even for FAIR itself) but only giving their personal opinion or perspective on each issue or question.

Why should anyone listen to FAIR, then, if they can't speak with authority for the Church? Who can one turn to for the authorized, "final answer" on every topic?

==Answer==

First of all, FAIR is an organization completely independent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and is not owned or endorsed by the Church as an official mouthpiece, so FAIR ''cannot'' claim any official status. <strike>In the interest of full disclosure, and so as not to cause any confusion on this matter, FAIR is careful to explicitly disclaim any such status.</strike> From the FAIR [http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAQ article] we read:

<blockquote>
<strike>We are not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and are therefore not doing this under the direction of the priesthood. . . .
</strike>
We try very hard to not give the impression that we are speaking for the Church in any way. We are not affiliated with the Church. We therefore try to avoid doctrinal declarations. Most of the time it isn't an issue as we are discussing things from a historical or scholarly point of view. Occasionally we get into discussions of doctrine when we feel our beliefs as Latter-day Saints have been misrepresented. At those times the writers are speaking from their own experience and beliefs.
</blockquote>

This seems to raise two questions in our readers' minds from time to time, <strike>namely, "What value are FAIR's answers if they lack the authority to speak definitively for the Church?" and "Why does the Church itself leave room for private speculation or discussion on various doctrinal topics rather than give the official answers once and for all?" (Or, to put the second question a different way, "If FAIR isn't an 'official' voice for the church, who else should I turn to in order to get the real, official answer to my question?")</strike> which we will address separately below.

===Of what value are FAIR's answers if they lack authority to speak for the Church?===

Only the Church's duly authorized agents can speak officially on behalf of the Church or give official pronouncements which establish doctrine that is binding upon the Church <strike>(the latter case, specifically coming from the First Presidency)</strike>. However, is this necessarily a problem when considering answers coming from a group such as FAIR?

There are many questions that people have, and there is plenty of benefit to having brothers and sisters in the faith "reason together" and learn from one another, and not expect to simply look to someone to give the one, final answer to any question. In this author's opinion, the Lord and Church leaders are wise to leave us to the exercise of working out these things and developing our mental and spiritual capacities to gain more understanding.

<strike>Does an answer about doctrine or Church history necessarily need to have an official stamp of approval from the Church hierarchy to be helpful, factual or true? Of course not, so there is still much room for organizations such as FAIR to be a great resource without needing to speak ''for'' the Church in some sort of officially binding way.</strike>
While the responses to issues offered by FAIR volunteers are not official statements by the Church, we believe them to be consistent with the Church's official teachings and are given by faithful, active, believing LDS members. These responses need not carry an official endorsement to be true or helpful in answering questions.

<strike>The Church exists to serve an extremely vital role, but a fairly specific and narrowly-defined one. The number of things the Church must take an official position about are limited to the core of the gospel of Jesus Christ and what bears directly on their work in administering the affairs of the Church. That leaves a lot of room for personal study and growth. We think we can help each other with a great deal of that, even if it's not something the Church has felt the need to make a declaration about.</strike>

FAIR's main mission is to answer criticisms about the Church, and we can certainly do so based on what we know, can study, and reason, as well as what the Spirit guides us to say as we prayerfully consider these issues, without necessarily receiving this as an official calling or going to the First Presidency to speak on each and every issue.

===If FAIR is not an official voice for the Church, to whom do I turn for the official answer to my question?===

In the early days of the Church, it was more commonplace for the local members to ask Joseph Smith <strike>various questions and hear</strike> for his teachings on <strike>the matter</strike> various matters. Obviously, the logistics involved in running a church of 500 members is rather different than it is with a church of 13 million, and it isn't possible to expect the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve to be able to teach all the individual members who have questions. The LDS Church, of course, ''does'' make official doctrinal statements but generally only on significantly important "core" issues. There is much room for all of us to study and learn independently and in local groups.

Beyond that, <strike>do we</strike> we do not need a "thus saith the Lord" answer to every question. We at FAIR sustain and support the leaders of the Church and follow their direction in matters of doctrine and the operation of the Church, but that doesn't mean we ''must'' look to someone else to simply provide us with ''the'' answer to every question we have. The Lord Himself commanded us:
<blockquote>
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Verily, I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. . . .
{{ref|dc1}}
</blockquote>
Is it inappropriate to assume that at least some of these good works that we are to be engaged in include studying the gospel and striving to learn more through the scriptures, personal prayer, discussions with each other and by reading the best books? Along with not expecting us to remain idle until explicitly commanded to do something, the Lord expects us to seek knowledge and learn and grow without simply being told what to think about everything.

Further,
<blockquote>
Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. {{ref|dc2}}
</blockquote>
An important part of the process of gaining this knowledge and intelligence is working diligently to study and learn, and not simply seek to have someone tell us the answers to memorize.

FAIR, religion teachers among the membership of the Church, and even our Church leaders have latitude to hold and express their best understanding of various topics, even to publish books (e.g., Elder Bruce R. McConkie's ''Mormon Doctrine''). Since none of these talks, lessons, papers, blogs, conversations or books have been accepted into the canon, they are not binding as 'the official word of the Church itself.' Does that mean they are useless to help us gain more understanding? No, there's much we can learn from each other, even if we're imperfect in our understanding along the way.

==Conclusion==

FAIR need not speak with the authority of the Church itself, or be an official representative of the Church, in order to provide a useful resource for people to gain a better understanding of Latter-day Saint history and teachings. Further, it is not necessarily correct for us to expect to turn to our Church leaders, particularly the general authorities, for the answer to every single question on a gospel topic.

On many issues, there ''is'' no official Church position, and so there is nothing that an official Church response will provide. In such cases, members are encouraged to use their agency to "study it out in [their] mind" as they seek knowledge and revelation from human and divine sources.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|dc1}}{{s||DC|58|26-28}}
#{{note|dc2}}{{s||DC|130|18-19}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
[http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAIR FAQ] answers the question "How authoritative are the things that you write?"

===External links===
[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine Official LDS Church Newsroom Article] emphasizing that not every statement by church leaders is official doctrine, and that individual members are encouraged to study independently and together to find gospel answers, in addition to following the "core" gospel doctrinal statements official endorsed or canonized by the Church.

[http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Truth Encyclopedia of Mormonism] entry for Truth, which provides some interesting thoughts about what "truth" is. We can all come to a greater understanding of life's truths from many places and sources, not all of which must be official church pronouncements to be "true".

===Printed material===

FAIRwiki:Style guide

2006-10-10T16:48:26Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Subject page */

{{EditorLinks}}This style guide gives direction on how FAIRwiki pages should be formatted and organized. Adhering to the approved style will help you create professional and appropriate wiki articles.

This article does ''not'' explain how to create pages or use Mediawiki markup language. For help with that, see [[Help:Editing]].

If you have any questions about or suggestions for the style guide, please contact Mike Parker at '''''mparker AT fairlds DOT org'''''.

==Examples of pages that meet the style==
*[[Book of Mormon textual changes]]
*[[Government during the Millenium]]

==Thou shalt...==
*'''Brevity:''' Keep articles as brief as possible. Use the ''Further reading'' section at the bottom of the article to refer readers to more detailed treatments.
*'''Doctrinally in bounds:''' Stay within boundary of acceptable LDS thought, even if your thoughts are not exactly "mainstream." For example, don't say "[[Adam-God]] is a true doctrine and the Church is wrong for not teaching it," when that is not acceptable per Spencer W. Kimball's 1975 general conference talk. You may ''believe'' it, but don't wiki it.
*'''Balance:''' If there are differences of opinion on a given subject (such as [[Foreknowledge of God|God progressing in knowledge]]), fairly state both sides of the argument.

==Thou shalt not...==
*'''Privacy:''' Thou shalt not, under ''any circumstances'', put a person's name, email address, or other personal information in a wiki article without his or her express permission. This rule includes answers from the FAIR list copied to the wiki.
*'''Sacred material:''' Thou shalt not quote language used in temple ceremonies, or describe them in such detail as would violate sacred covenants.
*'''Evil speaking:''' Thou shalt not attack the leaders of the Church (dead or living) or make personal, derogatory remarks about them. You ''may'' disagree with statements they have made, but be very careful in how you word your disagreement.

==Page layout==

In general, pages should be organized as follows:

==Criticism== (heading2)
A brief explanation of the criticism.

===Source(s) of the criticism=== (heading3)
Anti-Mormon books or web sites where the criticism originated

==Response== (heading2)
The response should be brief and summary in nature.

==Conclusion== (heading2)
A summary of the argument against the criticism.

==Endnotes== (heading2)
References to books or online sources cited or quoted in the article.

==Further reading== (heading2)

===FAIR wiki articles=== (heading3)
*Links to related articles in the wiki (bulleted)

===FAIR web site=== (heading3)
*Links to articles on the FAIR web site; Topical Guide entries go first (bulleted) as follows--
*FAIR Topical Guide: [link]

===External links=== (heading3)
*Links to external web pages (bulleted)

===Printed material=== (heading3)
*Printed resources whose text is not available online (bulleted)

A template of this page layout, ready for copy-and-paste, is available at [[FAIRwiki:New_page_template]].

To create a page based on an answer to a question submitted to the FAIR web site, use [[FAIRwiki:Answer_template]].

==Templates for special pages==
'''Draft articles''' are those with limited and/or incomplete content. This should be indicated to the reader by adding a special tag at the top of the page:

<pre><nowiki>{{draft}}</nowiki></pre>

'''Answers from the FAIR list''' are articles derived from questions sumitted to the FAIR web site. Indicate this by putting this tag at the top of the page:

<pre><nowiki>{{question}}</nowiki></pre>

==Voice and narrative==

===Active voice===
In general, you should strive to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_voice ''active voice''] rather than [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_passive_voice ''passive voice''] in your articles. For example:
*'''Active voice (correct):''' ''Critics charge that the Church teaches unbiblical doctrines.''
*'''Passive voice (incorrect):''' ''It is charged that the Church teaches unbiblical doctrines.''

===Third person narrative===
In general write in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_narrative third-person narrative] and not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-person_narrative first-] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-person_narrative second-person]. For example:
*'''Third-person (correct):''' ''Joseph Smith found the plates.''
*'''First-person (incorrect):''' ''Joseph Smith wrote what I read.''
*'''Second-person (incorrect):''' ''Joseph Smith wrote what you read.''

==Capitalization==
Words in headings should not be capitalized, except for:
*The first word in the heading.
*Proper names (e.g., Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, etc.) and titles (e.g., President Hinckley).

==Spelling==
Please spell check your edits before saving them. There are free programs you can use to check your spelling right in your web browser:
*[http://www.iespell.com/ IESpell] for Internet Explorer
*[http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/ SpellBound] for Mozilla Firefox

Use American spelling (''color'', ''archeology'') rather than British (''colour'', ''archaeology'').

==M-dashes and n-dashes==

===M-dashes===
Instead of using two hyphens to break apart thoughts within a sentence, use an m-dash:
:'''Wrong:''' What's important about a testimony--and the key to obtaining one--is that it comes from the Holy Spirit.
:'''Right:''' What's important about a testimony—and the key to obtaining one—is that it comes from the Holy Spirit.
You can create an m-dash by typing the following code:

<pre>&mdash;</pre>

===N-dashes===
When citing page or date ranges, instead of using a hyphen, use an n-dash. An n-dash is slightly longer than a hyphen, and indicates a range.
:'''Wrong:''' John Taylor’s testimony is found in ''History of the Church'' 7:99-108.
:'''Right:''' John Taylor’s testimony is found in ''History of the Church'' 7:99–108.
You can create an n-dash by typing the following code:

<pre>&ndash;</pre>

==Links==
===General rule===
One of the major features of a wiki is the ability to create links within an article to other articles on related subjects. In general, you should strive to create ''appropriate'' links to wiki articles and web pages the reader may find useful.

However, do not create links to subjects that are not apologetic in nature. For example, a link to page on [[Neal A. Maxwell]] is probably not appropriate, because Elder Maxwell, in and of himself, is not an apologetic topic.

===Subject page===
The exception to the general rule is to create a subject page for a topic that will point to reader to specific articles that are apologetically-based.

For example, a page for [[Gordon B. Hinckley]] could be created that would simply refer the reader to articles where his life and actions are examined (such as [[Church reaction to Hofmann forgeries]] and [[Downplaying the King Follett Discourse]].

===Anti-Mormon sites===
FAIR's policy is that we will ''not'' link to anti-Mormon web pages. If you cite an anti-Mormon web page or book, you may provide the site name (e.g., "Institute for Religious Research" or "Mormonism Research Ministry"), but do not create a link or publish a URL.

===Templates of Links===
Some topics (e.g. polygamy) have mutliple subpages. The FAIR articles or FairWiki pages that should be listed under "further reading" are often the same for all these pages. It is very tedious to have to update each page with references.

Instead, where possible create a template of links, and then simply insert the template into each webpage by entering the code:

<nowiki> {{template_name_here}} </nowiki>

A master list of link templates is available [[FAIRwiki:Templates | here]]; please update this list if you create new templates.

==Citations==
===Importance===
Remember, the purpose of the wiki is to give ''quick answers'' to commonly-asked questions, then to direct the reader to further resources. It is ''critical'' that you provide references for additional reading.

Try to always include:
*A link to the FAIR Topical Guide entry for the subject (if it exists) and/or articles on the FAIR web site.
*''Reliable'' articles on other web sites.
*Books and periodicals.

===Format===
Published works should be referenced in this format (note the use of quotes and italics):
:'''Book''':
:*Bruce R. McConkie, ed., ''Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954), 1:25.
:'''Article in a periodical:'''
:*George Horton, "Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon," ''Ensign'' (December 1983): 25.
:'''Web site:'''
:*Jeff Lindsay, "Book of Mormon Evidences," ''jefflindsay.com'' (accessed 2 October 2005).{{link|url=http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml}}
See the example pages, referenced above, for examples of how to format different types of citations.

===Footnotes and Endnotes===
There is a system which will create superscript footnotes, with an 'endnote' link to the bottom of the page.

====Inserting the superscript link====
1) To insert the superscript in the text, type
<nowiki> {{ref|name}} </nowiki>
where "name" is a unique name for the footnote, resulting in:

''Example'':The first person to notice this was Hugh Nibley.{{ref|Nibley}}

====Creating endnote text====
2) Then, create the endnote text and link where you wish it to appear (usually under the "endnote" section), like this:

<nowiki> {{note|name}} </nowiki>

Where "name" is the same ''unique'' name you gave the "ref" footnote in the body article.

Note that you '''''must still put the note text in the proper sequential order''''', so that the automatic Wiki list numbering will number them in the same way as the superscripts.

Since this is the first reference, the edited text should look like:

<nowiki> ==Endnotes==
# {{note|name}} Hugh W. Nibley, ''Since Cumorah,'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1966).
# {{note|name2}} <--- the second reference here
# {{note|name3}} <--- the third reference here

...and so on.

</nowiki>

Note the "#" code at the beginning of each line, to make a numbered list. Note that this is where you place the actual reference information.

The result gives us something like this:

'''Endnote Example''' 
#{{note|Nibley}} Hugh W. Nibley, ''Since Cumorah,'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1966).

====Adding a reference between two existing references====
If you need to add a reference between two references (say between name2 and name3 above) this can be done. You don't have to renumber anything (since this is done for you), but you must put the new reference in the proper spot, like so:

<nowiki> ==Endnotes==
# {{note|name}}
# {{note|name2}}
# {{note|name4}} <--- NB the new reference inserted here
# {{note|name3}}

</nowiki>

====Avoid empty HTML links in article body====
'''''Important''''': Note that if you put an 'empty' http:// external link like this:

<nowiki> [http://www.fairlds.org] </nowiki>

You will get a footnote-like link.[http://www.fairlds.org]

This link will "offset" any superscript links you've created with this method, since it is a numbered link. All subsequent endnotes will be "off by one." So:

*don't use 'empty' external links in the main body; use something like
<nowiki> [http://www.fairlds.org FAIR]</nowiki>

which gives a link like this: [http://www.fairlds.org FAIR].

*'empty' links in the 'further reading' section are OK, since they come ''after'' all endnotes and so won't offset the counting.

====Further helps and information====
To provide help to future editors, if the text:
<nowiki> {{subst:Footnote boilerplate}} </nowiki>

is placed at the begining of an "endnote" section, the "subst" command will replace it with some commented text summarizing these instructions.

For more information about what's going on under the hood and some more complex examples, see:
[[FAIRwiki:Footnotes]]

To see an example, go to [[Church reaction to Hofmann forgeries]].

===Scripture references===

Scripture citations should include a link to the scriptural passage on LDS.org, using the scripture template:

<nowiki>{{scripture|1|Nephi|3|7}}</nowiki>

Gives: {{scripture|1|Nephi|3|7}}

Learn how to use it [[FAIRWiki:Scripture_template_how_to |here]].

Notes:
* please cite the full name of a book of scripture (e.g. Nephi, not Ne.)
* use dashes, not n-dashes for spans of verses, since the lds.org scripture parser can't recognize anything but plain dashes. (i.e. just use the dash key on your keyboard, to the right of the zero key; no need for anything fancy.)
* If you refer to several passages in the same book, you'll need to repeat the book name. For example, "Mormon 8:17; 9:12" now has to read "Mormon 8:17; Mormon 9:12."

The template use makes using and reading scripture references much more friendly, so we feel these are a small price to pay for that convienience. Using a template also lets us modify how we present scripture references in the future by modifying one page, insead of thousands of entires, so this gives us future compatibility.

===Reference templates===

A complete list of [[FAIRwiki:Templates|reference and editing templates]] is available.

These templates have been created for works commonly cited. Rather than typing the entire reference for (say) John Sorenson's ''Ancient American Setting," one simply uses the template:

<nowiki> {{Aas|start=3|end=5}}</nowiki>

This produces the reference from page 3–5 for this book: 

'''''Final product''''':{{Aas|start=3|end=5}}

Note that most templates have a 'sister' template with the digit "1" after it. This is for single page references, like so:

<nowiki> {{Aas1|start=3}}</nowiki>

This gives:

{{Aas1|start=3|end=5}}

Template which end in a number:

<nowiki> {{Nibley1|start=3|end=5}}</nowiki>

Use an underscore and a one to indicate one page: _1. As so:

<nowiki> {{Nibley1_1|start=3}}</nowiki>

Producing: 

'''''Final product''''':{{Nibley1_1|start=3}}

Discussão:Downplaying the King Follett discourse

2006-10-10T16:22:38Z

PaulMcNabb: Talk:Downplaying the King Follett discourse moved to Talk:Downplaying the King Follett Discourse

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Downplaying the King Follett Discourse]]