The most recent U.S. Religious Landscape Survey had some very interested statistics about religious beliefs in the United States. The survey included categories such as how many people in the U.S. believe in God (87%), a break-down of the percentages of religions in the United States (Mormons are almost 2%), and more.
One category that I found interesting was that in the state of Utah (which has 58% Mormons) 49% of the people believe there is more than one way to interpret their religion.
I realize that some of those who participated in the survey may not have been LDS, but I assumed since there is the greatest majority of Mormons in Utah that the majority of those participating in the survey would be Mormon.
If this is true, I wonder which aspects of LDS doctrine or teachings people believe can be interpreted in various ways.
I’ve written before about the dangers in black and white thinking, and I think this survey shows others may agree with me.
For example, the Word of Wisdom can be interpreted in many ways. It is advised not to sleep longer than is needful, or to eat too much meat, but exactly how much is too much? That’s up for the individual to decide.
Other examples, at least for members of the LDS faith that many people believe should be pretty clear-cut include: faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and Enduring to the End. However, those can be up for interpretation as well. One needs to have enough faith to confess Jesus as their Savior, repent for their sins, enter into the kingdom through baptism, receive the Holy Ghost, and remain faithful throughout their days. Seems pretty cut and dry, right? However, some people may believe they need to meet certain requirements to show faith where others feel they don’t, etc.
There could be more examples, including interpretation of attending church, serving in the church, serving one’s community, attending the temple, reading scriptures, following the prophet, interpreting scriptures, and the list goes on.
I’m curious to see what you as readers think. Do you believe there is more than one way to interpret the LDS faith, or is it pretty cut and dry?
Grace for Grace 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 3, 2009 at 6:15 am
Javelin
One has to have a very strong testimony if they read lots of church history. I’m talking about all of church history that is not found in the Sunday School lessons. That makes them question some of what happens today. Some Californian Mormons were not comfortable with Prop 8. It was a strange feeling to come to church and hear things one knew to be untrue, and could not say so.
I would say that many of the lessons in church get recycled where every four years we keep saying the same thing. This is hard for those of us who want to share spiritual knowledge that is not coming from the Brethren.
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Jettboy
Of course there is more than one way to interpret Mormonism. Part of its teaching is about personal revelation and the theology is not based specifically on dogma. I must say that “reading Church history outside of Sunday School” is a danger to testimony is a red herring in this discussion. For me losing faith because of reading Church history is less about faith and more about lack of imagination and too strict of populist morality and expectations.
LikeLike
December 4, 2009 at 3:08 am
Ezra
That seems to be the danger of “progressive revelation.” How do you pass down the traditions of the Christian faith, as St. Paul observed, and reckon them with revelations that seem to run counter to the Word?
Is it possible for all revelations to square with one another — or at some point do you observe that the spiritual knowledge coming from a brother is of a different spirit?
Curious.
Ezra
LikeLike
December 4, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Jettboy
I have no answer to that Ezra other than faith and prayer. However, even with lack of “progressive revelation,” you have to choose Catholicism, mainline Protestantism, Evangelical Protestantism, and other “orthodox” variations. These are supposed to be the core dogmatic Christians with no “continual revelation” in their theology. Yet, they are so different from each other on so many theological topics that they might as well be different. An outsider would have to question what “tradition” means.
That is if you discount Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and lots of other religious faiths. If I didn’t trust what I consider my own encounters with G-d I could fully understand why a person would be atheist. Religion has proven to change drastically no matter how “unchanging” of the supposed clarity of doctrine.
LikeLike
December 9, 2009 at 11:12 am
David
Church Business Plan
LikeLike