General disclaimer & statement on terminology, phrases, and nomenclature
This disclaimer has been written to circumvent potential misunderstandings by delineating a uniform context and identifying specific definitions for the terms, descriptors, and concepts listed below, apropos of the subject matter that is presented.
The author endeavors to use this vocabulary consistently when referencing information pertinent to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”/“LDS Church”); vis-à-vis official/established and former policies, current and discontinued practices, as well as the implementation, adaptation and evolution of official Church doctrine, including concepts and teachings formerly described as “doctrinal,” “God-given,” “revealed,” etc. that have been rescinded for various reasons, including—but not limited to—the attainment of greater insight and understanding of underlying Gospel principles, to better serve the spiritual and temporal needs of the Church and its members, to be in compliance with changes in secular laws and regulations, etc.
The information presented on this platform is thoroughly researched and current as of its publication or noted date of revision. The author strives for accuracy and to present data within its proper context and to cite original sources to the best of their ability. Published articles may be revised periodically at the sole editorial discretion of the author should new or clarifying information be brought to their attention.
The author further discloses their membership in the LDS Church and that they communicate only as an individual member and not on behalf of the organization. Their effort to accurately communicate current policies and official teachings notwithstanding, readers can directly refer to authorized Church resources for confirmation, clarification, and/or revisions to the same.
✤✤✤ Concordance of terms, phrases & nomenclature ✤✤✤
Unlike a traditional glossary that lists topics alphabetically, the following terminology is presented in order of contextual significance, intended to guide understanding of the vernacular as defined by the LDS Church and employed by the author.
• The Church/LDS [Church/member(s)…]
While the author does their best to follow the counsel of Church leaders and adhere to the criteria provided by the Church’s official style guide when referencing the complete and correct name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and appropriate descriptors of its membership, for purposes of brevity, the terms “the Church/LDS Church” and “LDS” are used on this platform in reference to, and as a general descriptor for, the organization founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith and headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, its established official policies and doctrine—past and/or present—and its members (“Latter-day Saints”) throughout the world.
The Church identifies its members as those individuals whose names are included in its official membership records. Those records do not reflect an individual’s activity/involvement with the organization, or lack thereof. Nor is the inclusion of anyone’s name on those records considered a saving ordinance in and of itself.
Within the context of this and other articles presented on this platform, a consequential distinction is made between so-called active “Church members” (AKA “LDS members”/“Latter-day Saints”) and those herein referred to as “Mormons.” (See also “‘Mormonism’/Mormon culture & dogma” below)
• The Gospel/Gospel of Jesus Christ
As far as the Church’s primary function is concerned, the Gospel is:
This functional description places emphasis on the “...plan of salvation…through the Atonement of Jesus Chist…” while making general references to “covenants,” and “ordinances,” as they relate to being able to return to God’s presence, collectively referred to as “...the fulness of the gospel…”
Within this context, the phrase, “The fulness of the gospel... connotes...(of a word) imply or suggest (an idea or feeling) in addition to the literal or primary meaning... a fuller [i.e. not all-inclusive] comprehension of the Atonement.” (emphasis added)—Nelson, 1999. In short, the
“Fullness of the Gospel” refers to the essential doctrines, ordinances, and priesthood authority necessary for salvation and exaltation. The Church does not claim to possess all Gospel truths or that there is nothing more to learn. It is also a tenet of the faith that God…
This author has also emphasized the phrase, “the gospel includes…eternal truths…” because eternal truths are not limited to ordinances, covenants, or what can only be found in scripture or the words spoken or written by Church leaders.
The Thirteenth Article of Faith says, in part:
“Anything” recognizes the value of knowledge that can be attained outside of one’s religion, acknowledging that the Church is not the only place truth can be found.
There is no definitive list of “the best books,” and the admonition to seek “learning” is not limited to what can be learned from the scriptures, other Church publications, or anything produced by LDS authors. Wherever truth may be found, Latter-day Saints are clearly instructed to seek it out. In the words of Brigham Young:
• Doctrine/LDS Doctrine
In its broadest sense, the Doctrine of Christ, also referred to as the Plan of Redemption or Salvation, comprises the principles and teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as they are presently understood and implemented by the LDS Church. “Established” or “official doctrine” in the Church are the principles as consistently taught by living prophets and apostles during their stewardship.
As explained on the Church’s official website:
The words “doctrine,” “canon,” “gospel,” and “policy” are sometimes used interchangeably. As noted below, “canon” refers to the Standard Works of the Church—the scriptures. The previous excerpt describes doctrine as residing within scripture. It does not say that every single word and concept within the pages of scripture is doctrine. In addition to errors in translation referenced above, there is also a clear acknowledgement that the instructions and commandments that God communicates “…to His people through prophets…does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices.” (emphasis added)
“...changes to…teachings or practices” is not without precedent, examples of which can be found throughout the scriptures and the history of the restored Church. The most obvious, perhaps, is the fulfillment of the law of Moses, which consisted of numerous rules, principles, ceremonies, and rituals, established to constantly remind the people of their duties and responsibilities to God, including physical commandments and practices, like animal sacrifice. It also detailed rules and restrictions concerning every day facets of life from strict limitations on the nature and extent of activities undertaking on the sabbath to the type of material one’s clothing can be made from to the kinds of plants and animals that can be used as food—and those that should not—and how they should be prepared. Over many years, Jewish leaders added some of these provisions, ceremonies, and prohibitions to the original law. By the 1st century C.E., much of the spiritual meaning had been lost.
The law of Moses was fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which ended many of those prohibitions and practices, most notably that of ritual sacrifice. And yet, over two thousand years later, there are still many Christians—including a lot of Mormons—that insist on following portions of the Law of Moses, for no reason other than, “it’s in the Bible.”
• Canon/LDS Canon
“Canon” is defined as a collection of sacred books. LDS Canon refers to the Standard Works or scriptures of the Church. The canon of any faith is generally considered to be the definitive source or “prooftext” of its beliefs and teachings—their interpretation and application varies not only from one religious sect to another but from person to person, including individuals who identify themselves as members of the same religion.
LDS Canon consists of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, described as “Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” modern revelation recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price—the latter of which contains the following caveat:
In other words, even though the Bible is a key part of LDS Canon, many historical and theological scholars agree that it is not without errors, contradicts itself, and lacks univocality.
• Church Policy
Policies have been established, updated, clarified, and rescinded throughout the Church's history, just as various programs have been implemented and discontinued. Administrative procedures have been defined, revised, and discarded. Many of these are detailed in the Church’s General Handbook, an instruction and reference manual with more than two dozen editions published by the Church from the late 19th through the early 21st Centuries. The most current revision of the Handbook is publicly available on the Church's official website and is periodically updated as needed. Changes to Church policies can result from new revelation from the General Authorities. Still, policies are not, in and of themselves, “prophetic” nor definitively “doctrinal,” nor should they be viewed as such. Most policies are implemented due to administrative necessity to accommodate the needs of the Church’s members in a changing world and its effects on the organization and its people.
While the General Handbook is considered “authoritative” (§38.8.41) and its content informed by doctrine, it is NOT regarded as modern scripture like the Doctrine & Covenants. Thus, it is NOT included in the Standard Works of the Church. i.e., the General Handbook—including policies as written within it—is NOT part of LDS CANON.
• Church Leaders/Leadership
All individuals who serve in leadership positions within the Church are called from among its members and are counseled to fulfill their responsibilities prayerfully and in harmony with the Gospel to the best of their ability and understanding. There are no educational prerequisites for those called to leadership positions in the Church, such as acredited degrees in theology or divinity.
It has been clearly stated that “Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not infallible.” Everyone, from the branch presidents and bishops of the smallest congregations, Stake leaders and Area Presidencies, to the General Authorities of the Church, among whom are those sustained as prophets, are imperfect individuals with free will, differing strengths and weaknesses, implicit and explicit biases that influence their understanding, affect their distinct perspectives, and inform their personal opinions. In other words, all are fallible and can and do make mistakes, sometimes collectively. This alone does not invalidate their worthiness to serve nor preclude anyone from sustaining them in their callings.
Church leaders are given a great deal of autonomy when conducting the affairs of the Church within the geographical and ecclesiastical boundaries over which they have been assigned stewardship. Local leaders are typically better positioned to determine how some policies should be implemented, especially to accommodate unique circumstances. Any member of the Church with an objection to a policy or policy-based decision can bring their concerns to the attention of local leadership. Should their concerns not be addressed satisfactorily, they may appeal to other leaders in proper order, including the First Presidency.
The General Authorities, whose stewardship covers the entirety of the Church, have tried different modes of operation and management to determine what policies and practices best serve all of God’s children. Some policies have benefited the Church and its members, remaining in place to the present day. Others may have been useful during their implementation but proved impractical for subsequent generations and were rescinded. Others have been objectively harmful; while they were eventually discontinued, some feel they should not have been implemented in the first place.
• Revelation, the Holy Spirit, & the Light of Christ
***UPDATE PENDING***
• Official Church Websites, Church Publications, & LDS/Mormon Literature
An extensive body of work, including talks, essays, and addresses, has been written by Church leaders (prophets, apostles, and other General Authorities) and are accessible through the Church’s official websites and printed publications, including pamphlets, books, magazines, etc. This content also includes work by independent LDS contributors from a variety of backgrounds, with and without academic credentials and/or experience serving in a plethora of callings within the Church and seeks to expound on and interpret LDS Doctrine from the individual and unique perspectives of each writer.
Content available through the Church’s website—especially work credited to General Authorities—is often taken at face value as “definitive” explanations of Doctrine, even being described as such by some of the authors themselves, typically some Church leaders. Nevertheless, while these works may offer clarification and insight on Gospel principles and how they may be understood and applied at the time of their composition—“...the teachings of the living prophets…” are regarded as “authoritative” (General Handbook §38.8.41 [emphasis added])—they are not canonical, nor do they define official Church doctrine.
For example, the long-standing policy of denying Church members of African descent to hold the Priesthood had been the subject of many attempts to explain and even justify its implementation by several Church leaders since Brigham Young—even going so far as to say that it was doctrinal and the result of revelation, despite their being no references to clear canonical justification nor official records of such a revelation being received. When the policy was rescinded in 1978, many questions were raised about what had been said to justify the restriction in the first place. The apostle Bruce R. McConkie, who had published such rationale in the past, stated:
It’s also important to note that there are many statements, opinions, and “teachings” that are objectively racist, misogynistic, and bigoted—even assertions that can be accurately described as false doctrine—that remain publicly accessible through official Church sources, both online and in print. A fact that should not be construed as a tacit endorsement by the current Church Leadership in direct contradiction with current policies and practices. While there are individuals within the Church who continue to embrace—and even teach—those antiquated ideas, despite clear counsel to “Forget everything… contrary to the present revelation,” the remarks in question are typically found buried in obscure passages contained within more comprehensive works that are otherwise considered to have worthwhile information and perspectives.
Some would argue that these outdated opinions should be redacted or edited out of the talks and essays where they can be found. To call such an endeavor a logistical and editorial challenge would be an understatement. This author believes that taking such action would be disingenuous. It’s also completely unnecessary, taking into consideration counsel from Brigham Young that acknowledges, despite a sincere desire to preach the truth, mistakes are inevitable, while also providing a simple way to deal with them:
• Culture vs. faith traditions & belief systems
In the study of sociology, the term “culture” has a broad definition encompassing concepts that include—but are not limited to—the arts, laws, customs, behaviors, and institutions. Culture is so multifaceted that it has been described as “...the beliefs that people hold about reality...”—Sociology of Culture (emphasis added)
Thus, it should be understandable that when a cultural norm, tradition, or notion is brought to the attention of a devout follower of an established religious tradition and appears to be rhetorically incompatible or in direct contradiction with that religion, it often results in cognitive dissonance on the part of the follower.
Facing such conflicts can result in an individual experiencing a spiritual crisis. The instinctive response to alleviate cognitive stress is to ignore those conflicts. Some will attempt to reconcile the conflict without changing their worldview, which can lead to the perception that anyone who points out even the most minor inconsistencies is innately hostile to their belief system. Perceived hostility is often taken personally. Such internalization can lead to defensive and/or offensive actions, resulting in heated arguments in person or online, or even physical violence between individuals, communities, or nation-states.
The author’s intent is not to foment conflict of any kind, nor is it to provoke any crises—quite the opposite. Regardless of whether or not the reader is a person with or without spiritual beliefs of any kind, familiar or not with the LDS Church, active, inactive, or former members, they are invited to empathize and understand why many “Mormons”—as described below—think and behave the way that they do.
• “Mormonism”/Mormon culture & dogma
As far as how they are employed by the author, the terms “Mormon” and “Mormonism” are principally used as an identifier for Mormon culture, dogma, and dogmatic attitudes expressed as rigid, deeply held beliefs or traditions that are not officially taught or endorsed by the Church. While official doctrine is based on scripture and the teachings of living prophets, and is subject to clarification—i.e., adaptation, evolution, change—through “continuing revelation,” cultural dogmas tend to be more static and socially enforced. A process called “enculturation,” which may or may not be a conscious transition. These dogmas can include expectations around lifestyle, politics, or interpretations of modesty and gender roles. Such attitudes can strongly influence community behavior, often creating a perceived standard that is not only distinct from the Gospel of Jesus Christ but, at times, can be antithetical to it.
It’s also important to note that Mormon culture is not necessarily contained within the geographical boundaries of the state of Utah or the Intermountain West. Still, it does appear, at least from this author’s perspective, to be centered there. Thus, the phrase “Flippin’ Utah Mormons” is just a title and is not used as a blanket description for all Church members who live in Utah.
❖ “Presumptive Mormonism”
Another characteristic the author has noted among enculturated Mormons—including some former Mormons—is a presumption that all Mormons believe the same things in the same way, with little or no deviation. Such presumptions can be made for any group identifying with a particular organization, faith tradition, political faction, or socio-economic philosophy. A glaring problem inherent with this presumption is that it makes little or no allowance for differences of opinion, interpretation, or even subjective experience. The justification for this is often reduced to a line of reasoning to the effect of, “This is what I was taught about Mormonism. Therefore it is what all Mormons believe.” The author refers to its application to the Church and its teachings, and conflation of the same with Mormon culture, as “presumptive Mormonism.”
• “Mormon(s)”
In LDS-adjacent communities—and among former Church members in particular—a spectrum of descriptors is used to identify those associated with the Church and their varying degrees of that association. These identifiers include “True Believing Mormon” (typically used as a pejorative), “Nuanced Mormon,” “Progressive Mormon,” “Liberal Mormon,” “Post Mormon,” “Ex-Mormon,” etc.
The author uses the word “Mormon(s)” in reference to those who identify with, and devote themselves to Mormon cultural dogmas, as described above, or have identified with them in the past. Enculturated Mormons often perceive this devotion as just “living the Gospel”. It may even be taught within Church classrooms, from pulpits, and proselytized—albeit unintentionally—at the expense of actual Gospel principles because said Mormons are generally unaware of any distinction between their Mormon culture and the Gospel of Jesus Christ—as they understand it.
Objectivity
The author acknowledges the impossibility of offering a truly objective viewpoint. Still, it is hoped that the perspective offered will invite at least some clarity on the matters discussed. Especially for those who struggle to reconcile what they understand and feel are true principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with concepts that may appear to be in conflict but can be resolved through deeper understanding and, especially, recognizing the difference between doctrinal Church teachings and flawed interpretations, incorrect ideas, and untrue beliefs that—unfortunately—are often “taught at Church.”
Joseph L. Puente
Salt Lake City, Utah
(Current Revision: June 2025)
