- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
We are publishing a new article on the topic of Official Mormon Doctrine. It was written by one of our users here (we’re so proud! yay!). I wanted to start up this thread to discuss it. You can find links to it in our Additional Resources section of the websit:
http://www.staylds.com/ Great article! It articulates well the need to be wary of culturalisms, traditions, and other fallacies in determining doctrine. If more people were aware of the facts of this type of thing, there would likely be much less judgment and hypocrisy in the church. Thanks for writing this up. I do think there are some shortcomings though:
1. Frankly, I just don’t think one can classify Mormon doctrine in the way it has been in the article (” It requires the approval of the First Presidency, the concurrence of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and then it must be accepted in a sustaining vote of the entire membership.” It just doesn’t encapsulate enough of what I consider to be Mormon doctrine. For example, despite the WoW bolt-ons (alcohol, tea, coffee) that the article claims are not doctrinal, there is no leader in the church who will give a temple recommend to someone drinking alcohol on a regular basis with no intent to reform. Before Heber J. Grant, that was possible, but my point is, doctrine, in Mormonism, is evolutionary. We don’t just have an open canon for divine revelation on a church level, we have an open canon for cultural traditional evolution of doctrine as well. I believe this has to do with the strong dynamic that exists in Mormonism to obey the leaders. A leader says something, and given enough time and church policy, that something becomes doctrinal. I’m not sure it’s fair to ignore that as valid doctrine since it often shapes the theology (as well as one’s personal participation in the church) in very real ways.
It would be different if the leaders of the church were constantly dispelling such traditions, and trying to replace them with new ones, but Mormonism doesn’t work that way. The leaders in our church, currently, take the approach of ignoring that which isn’t the primary focus. As a result, rather than indicating that multiple piercings in a woman’s ear is not doctrine (which they assume will be a license for some to go out and get more piercings) they neither endorse it, nor deny it. This has the effect of endorsement (coupled with statements proclaiming that Pres. Hinckley was a true prophet), and eventually, it will likely become doctrinal that a woman must only have one piercing in her ears. In other words, the leaders of the church take the most conservative route. They let stand all proclamations of all leaders of the church until forced to renounce some piece of it. Even then, they will not indicate that a leader was wrong, merely that they were a “product of the time” or something.
This has several effects that are important. The first is that it leaves the door open for continuing revelation (very very important in Mormonism since it is a basic tenet of our faith). We don’t want to have too many “official doctrines” because it makes it hard to change them in the face of new revelation. The second is that leaders can say very egregious things without any official declaration otherwise (Mormon Doctrine anyone?). The third is that it creates this dynamic in the culture where many will latch on to a specific pronouncement, making it doctrinal, but there is still “officially” no reason for it to be doctrinal. The fourth effect (as a result of the third) is that there is widely varying rules for participation in the church at important levels. For example, some SPs might excommunicate over things not doctrinal, others will not.
2. The article points out the chicken and egg problem of scriptures validating prophets’ words, and vice versa (a very important point). The underlying assumption (of those who appeal to canonized scripture for doctrine) is that canonized scriptures are clear and easy to understand. The vast number of churches and theologies which interpret the exact same set of scriptures in wildly different ways would indicate otherwise. Saying something like “These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.” is like saying that the Constitution is the only source of law in our country. Again, the definition is just too narrow, and ignores the myriad ways to interpret the same set of information.
While I am inclined to agree with the points in the article from my perspective as someone who has suffered a trial of faith, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to ignore the obvious elephant in the room of traditional doctrine and culture in the church. I think we need a more encompassing definition of doctrine in Mormonism to really get a feel for how things are in our culture.
I to enjoyed the article as well. Euhemerus,
I agree with the articles definition of doctrine. I think you could define it differently. It is a pretty complex proposal to define doctrine or theology in a church like ours. The things like the word of wisdom standards you are calling doctrine I would call church policy. The church has lots of policy and they can and do change. In my opinion I don’t see doctrine as really changing. You could argue this. Polygamy you could argue as a doctrine that changed. I would argue that the doctrine did not change, but the policy concerning polygamy changed. You can only practice polygamy when only up to one of your wives is living. We have not changed anything in the scriptures concerning the doctrine. Blacks and the priesthood could be argued as a doctrinal change. You could get many people and leaders to agree with you. I would argue that there was nothing scriptural or revelatory linking this policy ever canonized so it was policy not doctrine.
“The leaders in our church, currently, take the approach of ignoring that which isn’t the primary focus.”
This may be true, but I see the leaders as more prone to slowly change their stand and never actually address the statements that no longer fit with what they are saying now. I see this as a problem.
Example: homosexuality. In the 70’s the church funding shock treatments at BYU. Pres. Kimble said that it was the most pernicious of sins, and it is caused by masturbation. We had conference talks saying that homosexuality was caused by selfishness and that you can treat the selfishness.
Yet today the first presidency will never say it is treatable. In fact they say that the feelings of homosexuality are not sins, and they do not know if homosexuality is biological. Yet we have church members continuing to quote the statements that are completely in contradiction with what the leadership is saying today and the church seems to pretend that the contradictions simply are not there.
Gail wrote:It is a pretty complex proposal to define doctrine or theology in a church like ours.
This was exactly my point. I don’t think that definition is adequate for what is commonly thought of as doctrine in our church. It’s too narrow and doesn’t encompass loads of things that are clearly doctrinal. Consider these examples:1. an anthropomorphic God
2. the nature of the Godhead
3. temple ceremonies
These are “doctrines” that were not put forth for the church to accept per se. They are sort of contained in the scriptures, but they are prone to interpretation as evidenced by the numerous interpretations that exist on these subjects. Yet, I would argue there are very clear doctrinal definition in Mormonism about these topics. Try telling Elder Holland that the nature of the Godhead as he proclaimed it in his recent GC address isn’t “doctrinal.”
Gail wrote:The things like the word of wisdom standards you are calling doctrine I would call church policy. The church has lots of policy and they can and do change. In my opinion I don’t see doctrine as really changing.
This flies in direct opposition to the basic platform of our church – continuing revelation.
Gail wrote:Polygamy you could argue as a doctrine that changed. I would argue that the doctrine did not change, but the policy concerning polygamy changed. You can only practice polygamy when only up to one of your wives is living. We have not changed anything in the scriptures concerning the doctrine.
I think this is a fine interpretation for someone arguing the issue of polygamy from the point of view of the LDS church. Try telling a FLDS, or someone who lived during Brigham’s days that it wasn’t doctrinal. Sorry, but it just doesn’t add up. In retrospect we might well proclaim that it wasn’t doctrinal, but those people then, there were plenty of statements proclaiming its divine creed and doctrinal validity. Furthermore, it was entirely rooted in scripture.Gail wrote:This may be true, but I see the leaders as more prone to slowly change their stand and never actually address the statements that no longer fit with what they are saying now. I see this as a problem.
Yes that’s exactly what I meant. You stated it much more clearly than me.Quote:I think it’s a bit disingenuous to ignore the obvious elephant in the room of traditional doctrine and culture in the church. I think we need a more encompassing definition of doctrine in Mormonism to really get a feel for how things are in our culture.
Euhemerus, I agree with you that it is important for any member or anyone who wants to understand Mormonism to understand its “traditional doctrine and culture”. I taught Gospel Principles class for two years and every Sunday would share with them something about our history, culture, current events, social and religious events, etc. so they could understand how becoming a member is a change how one lives his life, not just an adoption of a few abstract doctrines that have little effect in life.
But in this essay I am not addressing “traditional doctrine and culture”, Official Mormon Doctrine is an entirely different subject. The definition articulated by Apostles B.H. Roberts, George Q. Cannon, LDS.org is very precise for a specific purpose: to be “binding upon us as a people and as a Church”. All else is not quite so binding.
Compare Official Doctrine to the Constitution of the United States. The government has a mired of laws, rules, and publications. But all those must be in harmony with the Constitution or it risks being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Likewise, that is the same role the Standard Works is for us. I also believe it is why the Church frequently encourages us to bring our scriptures to Church, to serve as a reminder of their primacy canonized scriptures. Anything found inconsistent with the Standard Works runs the risk of being declared un-doctrinal. We just don’t have a Church Supreme court to enforce it. As Joseph Smith said, we are taught “correct principles and …govern ourselves”.
But make no mistake about it, there are other many important Official Laws which both citizens and saints must obey.
Citizen
Don’t pay your taxes, and you will be fined and possibly imprisoned.
Yell fire in a crowded theater and you will likely land in jail.
Smuggle an illegal alien across the boarder and you will be hauled off to prison.
Saint
Drink and smoke and you won’t get a temple recommend.
Publicly teach Darwinism and or be disfellowshiped or excommunicated.
Join the Klu Klux Klan, and you risk censure or worse.
In the above examples, important principles and laws (commandments) are involved that the citizen and saint must be obedient to, but they are not in the Constitution or the Standard Works. Those 2 documents are in a special class that all other laws and teachings must be measured. Also, they can only be modified by a very formal, proscribed method.
The Constitution can only be amended by approval of 2/3 of both Houses of Congress and by the Legislatures of ¾ of the States. It happens rarely (27 times since 1789), and seldom do leaders talk about the procedure. Nevertheless, the Constitution has primacy over any other law.
The Standard Works must be approved by consent of the First Presidency, the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and accepted as “binding upon us as a people and as a Church. It has happened only 7 times since 1830.
This distinction isn’t just academic; it has a very important practical benefit of understanding that teaching, statements and strongly held beliefs can and do change, without the Official Doctrine being changed. Otherwise people can misinterpret a change in teaching as a change in Official Doctrine.
For example, many people’s faith was challenged when the Church announced it no longer believed that Lamanites are the primary ancestors of Native Americans. Even though many GA’s taught it, many Official Publications stated it, and many Official Church Programs acted on it for nearly 100 years, it was not a change to Official Doctrine. The reason is that there was nothing in the original text of the BofM stating it. (The intro to the BofM, where the changed text resides, is not part of the text revealed to Joseph Smith; it was added later by the Church by way of introduction, but not as revelation.)
This is important because anti-Mormons take glee in picking out beliefs like this, and claiming the change is evidence that the Mormon prophets are frauds. The narrow definition of Official Doctrine as practiced by the Church, can inoculate members against such allegations, so no one’s faith needs to be threatened.
There is real safety of the Church restricting Official Doctrine which is “binding upon us as a people and as a Church” to only that which is formally approved by the FP, Q12, and the membership. There are many other doctrines and cultural beliefs that similarly can be cleared up by understanding what is and is not Official Doctrine: Blood Atonement, great and abominable church, belief that dark skin is a curse, infallibility of prophets, Book of Mormon setting in New England or Meso-America, or….
I also agree with you that the scriptures can be interpreted many different ways. That’s why there are approximately 2000 Christian denominations all saying they each have the proper reading of the Bible. Moreover, by one count there are 70 churches spin-offs from the LDS church. As imperfect as the process is, it’s the roll of the Prophets and Apostles to testify of Christ and teach of his gospel as contained in the scriptures. They have forged a remarkable consensus on interpreting the scriptures among 14 million members in 160 different countries. The have done that by effectively utilizing
· Official talks and statements
· Official publications
· Official policy and procedure
· Books by General Authorities
So these other sources of doctrine and culture are important in interpreting and fleshing out the Mormon experience. I do not quibble for one moment their very important and necessary roles.
I also believe that not understanding what Official Doctrine is, leads many people to question their faith for no good reason. The narrow definition helps people understand that any anomalies in official talks, statements, publications, policy and procedure is not a change in anything fundamental, and hence not a challenge to their belief system. A broader definition, however, opens up a can of worms that gives many members much grief and anti-Mormons love to attack.
I appreciate the courageous placement of this article at this web site. I do have a concern that this approach of defining Official LDS Doctrine has the result of building such a small box as to be functionally meaningless. If it “felt” Constitutional as Don is saying in the post above (Hi, Don! Are you new here?), I think the narrowness might not be bad. But for some reason it seems to miss the mark (for me). I may just need some guidance.
When I explain core LDS-ness to others, there is a single word that successfully captures it: Authority. That one word explains all that is different about our current religion (or our current institutional and cultural incarnation of Mormonism). In other words, core LDS doctrine is that there was a Great Apostasy ended by a great, glorious, and final Restoration of power, keys, and authority that reside now in the Quorum of the Twelve. All other considerations hang on that, in practical terms. For me, I have to ask, does our explanation of Official Doctrine elucidate that or obfuscate it?
I don’t have clarity on this matter. I don’t perceive clarity from the new article. I may lack perception and capability. But I don’t think it would hurt to explore this for a bit with the possible end of improving the article.
Tom, fwiw, the core word for me is “family” – as in “I am a child of God” – and the key concept is ongoing revelation. I might link “authority” as the authority to change as new light and knowledge is understood or uncovered – and since I’ve never believed in a complete restoration, but rather an on-going restoration, that is an important distinction to me. Really, though, I view “authority” quite narrowly as the right to preach a “new” Gospel (a restored one, more correctly) and create and administer symbolic ordinances that alter the very view of eternity held on earth at any given time – and our temple ordinances did and continue to do that. I take the Article of Faith as a parser and limit “authority” to those things listed in it – “preach” and “administer” only. Also, I know that is hard for many who have claimed that a core distinction with Mormonism is that “others” change their doctrine while we don’t, but it doesn’t bother me in the slightest – since I really like the ability to change doctrine (little “d’) and reserve “Doctrine” (big “D”) to very few things. It’s like Truth vs. truth – and that means a lot to me personally. In that sense, there really is very little “Official Mormon Doctrine” – even as there is plenty of “current official Mormon doctrine” and even more “Mormon doctine”. I have no problem with that.
Quote:Tom Haws
I do have a concern that this approach of defining Official LDS Doctrine has the result of building such a small box as to be functionally meaningless… I think the narrowness might not be bad. But for some reason it seems to miss the mark (for me). I may just need some guidance.
When I explain core LDS-ness to others, there is a single word that successfully captures it: Authority. That one word explains all that is different about our current religion (or our current institutional and cultural incarnation of Mormonism). In other words, core LDS doctrine is that there was a Great Apostasy ended by a great, glorious, and final Restoration of power, keys, and authority that reside now in the Quorum of the Twelve. All other considerations hang on that, in practical terms. For me, I have to ask, does our explanation of Official Doctrine elucidate that or obfuscate it?
I don’t have clarity on this matter. I don’t perceive clarity from the new article. I may lack perception and capability. But I don’t think it would hurt to explore this for a bit with the possible end of improving the article.
Yes, Tom, the definition the Brethren have given and practiced for 180 years appears narrow. (Pardon me for pulling authority card, but this is the Brethrens’ definition, not mine.) The Standard Works are a very small percentage of all millions of pages of text the Church has published over the years. But the beauty of the scriptures is that they are the foundation for all LDS doctrine, teaching and practices. D&C & BofM are good at discussing the apostasy, Priesthood restoration, and Church government including the role of the Quorum of the Twelve. The conference addresses, official statements, official publications, etc. give substance and clarification to the Standard Works, and many, many other important subjects, but they are all consistent with the scriptures.
I hope that helps
BTW
It is not unusual for churches to have narrowly defined Official Doctrine. Catholic churches hold two standards: the Bible and tradition. Starting in 1517, Martin Luther rejected Catholic tradition, and focused exclusively on the Bible as the only source of divinely revealed knowledge. This view is held by most Protestants ever since.
In the late 1800’s, some Protestant ministers adopted the notion of Biblical inerrancy and sufficiency. They believed the Bible contains no errors, and it contains everything necessary for salvation. Today these churches fall under the Fundamentalist / Evangelical umbrella.
So the Mormon effort to limit Official Doctrine to canonized scriptures is has ample precedence in both Catholic and Protestant Christianity.
Don, I can hear your explanation, and I can agree with it. But when all is said and done, I still can’t tell what difference it makes. What I don’t understand is the purpose of the article. Who does the article help? How does it help you? What question does it answer for you? What puzzle does it solve for you?
What does Official Doctrine matter when I am sitting in a temple recommend interview?
What does Official Doctrine matter when I am in Sunday School class?
What does Official Doctrine matter when I am trying to teach a class?
What does Official Doctrine matter when I am in tithing settlement?
I think if you can get clarity on questions like these and answer them in the introduction to the article, it would really increase its utility. Just my opinion.
Tom Haws wrote:Don,
I can hear your explanation, and I can agree with it. But when all is said and done, I still can’t tell what difference it makes. What I don’t understand is the purpose of the article. Who does the article help? How does it help you? What question does it answer for you? What puzzle does it solve for you?
What does Official Doctrine matter when I am sitting in a temple recommend interview?
What does Official Doctrine matter when I am in Sunday School class?
What does Official Doctrine matter when I am trying to teach a class?
What does Official Doctrine matter when I am in tithing settlement?
I think if you can get clarity on questions like these and answer them in the introduction to the article, it would really increase its utility. Just my opinion.
I’m with Tom
I think I have made it pretty clear that I agree with Don on this definition, but I would suspect that few members would agree with us. I have had many many arguments using this contention. Usually I am arguing that there is no doctrinal bases for the church’s policy on homosexuality and the church’s political actions on gay marriage. Without getting into the specifics of my arguments, in response they constantly refer to the Prop 8 letter, and a quote from a GA in the 70’s claiming that these are examples of doctrine. I believe that the GA’s have offered this definition of doctrine, but are not loud about broadcasting it. I believe that they know that the more broad idea that most of the member some how hold in their minds fosters a greater obedience. I think a pretty large percentage of the church believes that all the prophet have seen Christ himself, and have communion with him on a regular bases. This is not an idea the leaders have endorsed, but they certainly do not directly contradict it. If everyone kept fresh in there minds the narrow definition of doctrine that they have actually endorsed, and that the GA’s are men called and doing their best like the rest of us in our callings, would we be so conservative in our interpretations or so obedient in every particular? Would we be any different than any other Christian denomination?
The essay is written primarily for those suffering a crisis of faith or those who know someone who is. Those who are in Fowlers stage 2 or 3 would not see the benefit. But those most likely will find value in this information are struggling in state 4, particularly if their challenges come from perceived inconsistencies in church doctrine, history, or science/religion. The genesis of this essay grew out of my experience talking with critics of the Church, who loved to quote GA’s, especially JS, BY, PPP. Also books that give some people fits are “Mormon Doctrine”, by Bruce R McConkie, quotes from Journal of Discourses, and more recently some people are struggling with “Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling” The critics talk as if we believe GA’s are infallible (that’s not our doctrine, but many Mormons still believe it). They also claim we change our doctrine dramatically over time, but the essay shows that outside the 7 exceptions only unofficial doctrine changes.
How does it help you? What question does it answer for you? What puzzle does it solve for you?It was a great eye opener to learn the formal procedure for changing doctrine, and that it has only happened 7 times, and all for some very substantial reasons. It helped me understand that the parts of Mormondom that drive me crazy was not a part of that. For example, I can now deal easily with the ward teaching message saying “if the Brethren have spoken the thinking has been done.” Another example is McConkie’s take on the Great and Abominable Church. For me, the biggest value is that it helps put in balance paradox two big principles of the gospel, obedience vs free agency.
What does Official Doctrine matter when I am sitting in a temple recommend interview?It gives me the confidence to answer the questions without having to get the interviewer’s agreement, short of a serious digression. I answer Yes, No, Earnestly Trying as truthfully as I can, and leave it at that. The recommend requires 3 signatures and I have the biggest part of the responsibility in any judgment calls.
What does Official Doctrine matter when I am in Sunday School class?It provides me a great B.S. detector. Entirely to often teacher’s pass off second and third generation teachings as Gospel. A couple weeks ago in a discussion of the Creation, the teacher paraphrased a lesson he remembered reading for an institute class several years ago as solid evidence the earth was created in 6-24 hour periods. Although Genesis says that, the GA’s have made it abundantly clear that there is no official stand on the subject. I had a discussion with my Bishop a couple years ago who suggested that I should stick closely to the manual. He then quoted me from the manual that directive. I told him that as I read the scriptures, they counseled otherwise:
D&C 88:118.
Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”
D&C 88:78-80
78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;
79 Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—
Moroni 7:19
Search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.
What does Official Doctrine matter when I am trying to teach a class?I am very conscious of the fact the SS manuals are written by well meaning, but fallible people. The manual is an official publication, and I try to follow it as much as I can. But my biggest responsibility is to the needs of my students. I feel I have failed if I haven’t either informed, motivated or inspired the students. As a result, I supplement the lesson with outside materials, preferably from the Standard Works, then GA’s, then other sources in that order. I feel free to even quote non-Mormon sources if the quote is particularly good, but never as a justification for my point. But I will share nothing that I believe is not in harmony with the Scriptures.
At that point, he changed the subject.
Let me give you an example of how I use Official Doctrine. I taught a High Priest lesson recently on Fatherhood, based on conference addresses. The talks were imo rather routine stuff that the HP have heard a million times. So I introduced the lesson by playing a taped interview with Anton Ohno just after winning his 8th Gold Medal at the Olympics. He told how his Dad had helped him, how his father was his best friend, his coach, his trainer, and how he talks to him 2-3 times every day. It was quite moving. We discussed what principles he demonstrated that we can learn from, then we discussed several points from the lesson. I closed by referring to the lesson that suggested they consider their relationship not just with their earthly father, but with their Heavenly Father as well. Then I passed out the lyrics to “Oh My Father” for them to follow along, as I played the Tab Choir singing the hymn. One of my most true blue TBM, said it was the best lesson he had heard on the subject. Others also commented how they were moved.
What does Official Doctrine matter when I am in tithing settlement?The scriptures say 10%. GA’s generally advise that there is a difference between gross and net, but it is left to the individual how he interprets that. For example, a business subtracts out taxes before arriving at net. Is the individual justified in doing the same thing? Everyone must decide for themselves.
A couple of response. 1. I appreciate the distinction you are trying to make in the article. I think it’s an important one, particularly for those struggling in their faith (I think I fall in that camp). I also see Ray’s point that the distinction could be important from the point of view of a continual restoration of all things.
2. The comparison to the Constitution is good, including the fact there are a myriad of laws that are not constitutional that still stand. Likewise, there are likely Mormon doctrines (little “d”) that contradict Mormon Doctrine (big “D”). What does this mean? To me, almost nothing. At the end of the day, whether it’s theoretically against the constitution or not for the gov’t to search and seize my belongings at the airport without a warrant, they do, and I have to live with it. So is the law “constitutional”? In theory, I claim it’s not, but it doesn’t matter, it’s still the law.
3. I’m also with Tom in that the categorization of Mormon Doctrine is so narrow as to be almost useless (which was my original point). For example, you mentioned that you were able to rebut your Bishop’s remarks with quotes from scriptures. That’s fine, and I see the utility, but the thing is, one could use the scriptures to rebut just about every piece of Mormon doctrine, or Mormon Doctrine. The scriptures are wildly contradictory without impressing some measure of interpretation onto them. While it might confound some Bishops, if you use the scriptures to start justifying homosexuality, you will likely not get along with your leaders (as you have indicated).
I will mention that both Tom and I are engineers, and perhaps this is why we see things the same. We obviously habitually see things from a pragmatic point of view. I am the first one to admit that theory has its place, and utility, but I usually find any one school of thought usually lacking in being able to properly describe reality (yes I recognize the irony of me promoting my school of thought as the right one).
In closing let me say that I’m not picking on you Don, or even disagreeing with you. In fact, I do agree with you that Mormon Doctrine is narrowly defined. In fact, I have used such theoretical distinctions in my own discussions with people in the church. I just don’t think that it’s a very good characterization of the reality of Mormonism in which we live. If you ask a lay member what they think Mormon doctrine is comprised of, you will get a whole laundry list of things. While theoretically, and technically this may be incorrect, it is nonetheless reality. Additionally, I think most Mormons assume that leaders are correctly interpreting the scriptures. As a result, I think most rank-and-file Mormons will default to what the current prophet/leaders are saying, even if it contradicts their reading/understanding of the scriptures. What does this say about our interpretation of what is Doctrine? Perhaps that the living oracle is more doctrinally sound than 2000 year old writings (a reasonable assumption in some regards).
Euhemerus, you made two references to a term I am unclear about the meaning of. Quote:I usually find any one school of thought usually lacking in being able to properly describe reality
and
Quote:the reality of Mormonism in which we live.
. Are you indicating that reality is a constant never changing thing. I do not have the thought patterns of an engineer. I have the mind set of a reasonably creative public school teacher. I have attended TBM wards on the bench in SLC , emigrant branches in the inner city that had to have translations in 3 or 4 languages, and am a member of a suburban branch that has more converts than lifers. In all these places they may have been on the same lesson in a building with the same floor plan, but the reality of Mormonism was very different if I understand the term correctly.
Could you clarify the term “reality of Mormonism”
Fwiw, I think it VERY important to distinguish between “the reality of Mormonism in which we live” and what I call “pure Mormonism”. I deal with “reality”; I revel in “purity”. Iow, I absolutely LOVE what I see as pure Mormonism, even as I have had to slog through practical Mormonism in some of the places I’ve lived. What fascinates me is when the two meet (or almost meet) – like in a couple of wards in which I’ve lived. Mormonism is amazing when it “works” – and I’ve seen it work. There really is nothing like that – and those experiences mean a lot to me.
I understand totally that not everyone has had that type of experience, but the irony is that it “works” when the group as a whole quits caring about doctrinal distinctions and just accepts people for who they are and how they view things. Obviously, that’s not possible completely for all, since there are still some bright-line separators (like for homosexuals) – but when you see a church community that embraces everyone for who they are (even those whom it understands won’t join it), you begin to see “pure Mormonism”.
Last point, and it’s a critical one:
“The Church” CAN’T make that happen.It simple can’t. It happens locally, often as the result of a handful of people who simply refuse to not embrace everyone – who invite anyone and everyone to worship with them – who have no problem sitting with someone who reeks of cigarette smoke and has a visible tatoo – who would stand up in the middle of the sacrament being passed and hug a drunk who walked through the chapel doors. I stopped requiring “The Church” to change long ago and focused on changing “my church” wherever I lived – not in some judgmental way, but simply by trying to be the person others need. There’s a HUGE difference between insisting that others change and focusing on changing yourself. One way to do that is to let go of “Official Mormon Doctrine” to every extent possible.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.