3 ms·

I'm not a member, just going off what they told me. From what I understand the actual edicts (maybe it's called something) else aren't really supposed to be pub

I'm not a member, just going off what they told me. From what I understand the actual edicts (maybe it's called something) else aren't really supposed to be published or talked about. So I've only talked to ex-mormons about this.

lolinder 4y ago
I am a member, and every actual commandment is definitely public record. Even the temple covenants are (as of recently) public record[0], and those used to be the ones that were held in the highest level of secrecy. There are a whole lot of people who have their own interpretations of the commandments, and that coupled with our history of secrecy surrounding the temple could definitely give rise to the idea that it's difficult to know what all the requirements are, but it's all online and available to everyone at this point. Here's the relevant information about the health code[1]: > The Lord revealed in the Word of Wisdom that the following substances are harmful: > Alcoholic drinks (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:5–7). > Tobacco (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:8). > Tea and coffee (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:9; latter-day prophets have taught that the term “hot drinks,” as written in this verse, refers to tea and coffee). [0] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-e... [1] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/word-of-wisdom https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...
- csdvrx 4y ago
  I've checked the website and it's easy to get lost clicking around like on tvtropes.org > I am a member, and every actual commandment is definitely public record. Even the temple covenants are (as of recently) public record[0], and those used to be the ones that were held in the highest level of secrecy. Great! So here's a very legit question: is there a PDF version that I could read linearly to get a good idea of the whole doctrine? (I mean something like the Talmud) I'm just curious and want to learn.
  - lolinder 4y ago
    It's obviously very difficult to compress any religion's doctrines down into an easily digestible form, but the pamphlets used by the missionaries do a pretty good job of summarizing the most important points [0]. Beyond that, the Gospel Topics[1] section is, as you found, a bit of a rabbit hole, but contains the church's official stance on any topic where they've taken a stance. If you can't find it there, it's likely that there isn't an official consensus. [0] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/handbooks-and-callings/mission-callings/teaching-pamphlets https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/handbooks-and-call... [1] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...
  - nocoolnametom 4y ago
    It's not just a funny joke that attempting to define LDS doctrine is akin to trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. For almost every doctrinal position there are either other doctrinal positions or historical events that go against it (or sometimes both). Even on something as traditionally Christian as the Atonement of Jesus Christ and grace vs. works, the LDS doctrine and previous LDS leadership authorities can be read to support penal substitution theory or satisfaction theory, and you'll find plenty supporting both the supremacy of grace AND the supremacy of works. Honestly, the best approximation of LDS doctrine is probably not found in any form of text but is best found through the practices of the majority of the active membership. Oh, and the Wikipedia pages are also probably a good place to start, since they can be changed to keep things current with changing emphasis and practice. Of course, that's not to say that you can't find attempts by LDS individuals and academics to create what you're asking for, it's just that as time moves on each attempt has fallen out of favor as the culture of the organization shifts away on certain items: 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book) 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Mormonism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Mormonism 3: https://deseretbook.com/p/lds-beliefs-doctrinal-reference-robert-l-millet-79027 https://deseretbook.com/p/lds-beliefs-doctrinal-reference-ro... 4: https://gregkofford.com/products/this-is-my-doctrine https://gregkofford.com/products/this-is-my-doctrine
patch_collector 4y ago
It's actually quite public. The 'raw' doctrinal backing comes from 'Doctrine and Covenants, Section 89': https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/word-of-wisdom-dc-89?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/wor... Clarifications as to what the 'hot drinks' section means has come over time, generally being shared during the twice-annual General Conference. The most prominent call came in 1921. You can read more about it here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations-in-context/the-word-of-wisdom?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations...
freedomben 4y ago
I'm a former Mormon (I guess you could call me an "ex-mormon"). Just some advice: be careful about getting (or propagating rather) information from ex-mormons regarding Mormonism (or rather, verify it first). There's an incredible mix of ignorance and/or antipathy that leads to extremely unreliable information. Of course there are plenty of exceptions, but it's a massively deep philosophy/corpus that not many (even active members) put in the effort to actually know it, and for some reason some people become LLMs when asked questions about it, answering very confidently with whatever sounds the most correct to them without regard to actual truth value.
- nocoolnametom 4y ago
  That "massively deep philosophy/corpus" doesn't help things, though. With nearly 200 years of a leadership that teaches that whatever is spoken by God's servants (the highest church leadership) is to be equated as similar to the word of God (with a normal human distribution of those leaders who approach this view with a cautious humility through those who speak their musings with confidence) there's a HUGE of collection of some pretty odd beliefs. Since the church leadership almost never repudiates these past statements, preferring to have them quietly fade from the collective memory and consciousness of the membership over time, chances are that there's still some few members who are aware of these weird beliefs and can back them up with some sort of statement by a modern LDS prophet or apostle. This makes any "actual truth value" of an odd teaching or belief really difficult to gauge, and chances are there's some actual statement behind many of that unreliable information. That's speaking of teachings and doctrine, of course. When it comes to history that's less like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall and it's much easier to find sources for more accurate history, and I agree that it's a bit sad how little accuracy in history seems to be respected by some believing and formerly-believing members.
  - freedomben 4y ago
    Actually I completely agree with you. There are indeed plenty of things where it's murky and hard to piece together the truth (particularly since Joseph and the early church were so secretive about some teachings like polygamy). The type of thing I had in mind are things that aren't ambiguous but rather are pretty clear. Things like "the actual edicts ... aren't really supposed to be published or talked about" regarding caffeine/word of wisdom. I certainly don't claim to know everything, but I have spent an insane amount of time reading/researching Mormon history and I've never heard that before. Stuff like that seems to pop up constantly for some reason when I talk about things with ex-mormons.
bart_spoon 4y ago
It's not that they aren't supposed to be published or talked about, its that the caffeine thing was never an "edict" in the first place. The edict was no coffee or tea, and culturally that became "no caffeine" because that was a common link between the two. It became a common enough belief among lay-members over the case of many decades that the church in recent years put out a statement clarifying that caffeine is not in fact prohibited or addressed in any way by church doctrine.

lolinder 4y ago

I am a member, and every actual commandment is definitely public record. Even the temple covenants are (as of recently) public record[0], and those used to be the ones that were held in the highest level of secrecy. There are a whole lot of people who have their own interpretations of the commandments, and that coupled with our history of secrecy surrounding the temple could definitely give rise to the idea that it's difficult to know what all the requirements are, but it's all online and available to everyone at this point. Here's the relevant information about the health code[1]: > The Lord revealed in the Word of Wisdom that the following substances are harmful: > Alcoholic drinks (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:5–7). > Tobacco (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:8). > Tea and coffee (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:9; latter-day prophets have taught that the term “hot drinks,” as written in this verse, refers to tea and coffee). [0] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-e... [1] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/word-of-wisdom https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...

csdvrx 4y ago
I've checked the website and it's easy to get lost clicking around like on tvtropes.org > I am a member, and every actual commandment is definitely public record. Even the temple covenants are (as of recently) public record[0], and those used to be the ones that were held in the highest level of secrecy. Great! So here's a very legit question: is there a PDF version that I could read linearly to get a good idea of the whole doctrine? (I mean something like the Talmud) I'm just curious and want to learn.
- lolinder 4y ago
  It's obviously very difficult to compress any religion's doctrines down into an easily digestible form, but the pamphlets used by the missionaries do a pretty good job of summarizing the most important points [0]. Beyond that, the Gospel Topics[1] section is, as you found, a bit of a rabbit hole, but contains the church's official stance on any topic where they've taken a stance. If you can't find it there, it's likely that there isn't an official consensus. [0] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/handbooks-and-callings/mission-callings/teaching-pamphlets https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/handbooks-and-call... [1] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...
- nocoolnametom 4y ago
  It's not just a funny joke that attempting to define LDS doctrine is akin to trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. For almost every doctrinal position there are either other doctrinal positions or historical events that go against it (or sometimes both). Even on something as traditionally Christian as the Atonement of Jesus Christ and grace vs. works, the LDS doctrine and previous LDS leadership authorities can be read to support penal substitution theory or satisfaction theory, and you'll find plenty supporting both the supremacy of grace AND the supremacy of works. Honestly, the best approximation of LDS doctrine is probably not found in any form of text but is best found through the practices of the majority of the active membership. Oh, and the Wikipedia pages are also probably a good place to start, since they can be changed to keep things current with changing emphasis and practice. Of course, that's not to say that you can't find attempts by LDS individuals and academics to create what you're asking for, it's just that as time moves on each attempt has fallen out of favor as the culture of the organization shifts away on certain items: 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book) 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Mormonism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Mormonism 3: https://deseretbook.com/p/lds-beliefs-doctrinal-reference-robert-l-millet-79027 https://deseretbook.com/p/lds-beliefs-doctrinal-reference-ro... 4: https://gregkofford.com/products/this-is-my-doctrine https://gregkofford.com/products/this-is-my-doctrine

patch_collector 4y ago

It's actually quite public. The 'raw' doctrinal backing comes from 'Doctrine and Covenants, Section 89': https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/word-of-wisdom-dc-89?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/wor... Clarifications as to what the 'hot drinks' section means has come over time, generally being shared during the twice-annual General Conference. The most prominent call came in 1921. You can read more about it here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations-in-context/the-word-of-wisdom?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations...

freedomben 4y ago

I'm a former Mormon (I guess you could call me an "ex-mormon"). Just some advice: be careful about getting (or propagating rather) information from ex-mormons regarding Mormonism (or rather, verify it first). There's an incredible mix of ignorance and/or antipathy that leads to extremely unreliable information. Of course there are plenty of exceptions, but it's a massively deep philosophy/corpus that not many (even active members) put in the effort to actually know it, and for some reason some people become LLMs when asked questions about it, answering very confidently with whatever sounds the most correct to them without regard to actual truth value.

nocoolnametom 4y ago
That "massively deep philosophy/corpus" doesn't help things, though. With nearly 200 years of a leadership that teaches that whatever is spoken by God's servants (the highest church leadership) is to be equated as similar to the word of God (with a normal human distribution of those leaders who approach this view with a cautious humility through those who speak their musings with confidence) there's a HUGE of collection of some pretty odd beliefs. Since the church leadership almost never repudiates these past statements, preferring to have them quietly fade from the collective memory and consciousness of the membership over time, chances are that there's still some few members who are aware of these weird beliefs and can back them up with some sort of statement by a modern LDS prophet or apostle. This makes any "actual truth value" of an odd teaching or belief really difficult to gauge, and chances are there's some actual statement behind many of that unreliable information. That's speaking of teachings and doctrine, of course. When it comes to history that's less like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall and it's much easier to find sources for more accurate history, and I agree that it's a bit sad how little accuracy in history seems to be respected by some believing and formerly-believing members.
- freedomben 4y ago
  Actually I completely agree with you. There are indeed plenty of things where it's murky and hard to piece together the truth (particularly since Joseph and the early church were so secretive about some teachings like polygamy). The type of thing I had in mind are things that aren't ambiguous but rather are pretty clear. Things like "the actual edicts ... aren't really supposed to be published or talked about" regarding caffeine/word of wisdom. I certainly don't claim to know everything, but I have spent an insane amount of time reading/researching Mormon history and I've never heard that before. Stuff like that seems to pop up constantly for some reason when I talk about things with ex-mormons.

bart_spoon 4y ago

It's not that they aren't supposed to be published or talked about, its that the caffeine thing was never an "edict" in the first place. The edict was no coffee or tea, and culturally that became "no caffeine" because that was a common link between the two. It became a common enough belief among lay-members over the case of many decades that the church in recent years put out a statement clarifying that caffeine is not in fact prohibited or addressed in any way by church doctrine.