- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I read the How to Stay in the Church article a while ago, and there is a section where it lists all the doctrines from which the Church has “distanced itself”. Doctrines like Adam-God theory, etcetera. One one hand, we claim that knowledge is gained through inspiration; however, we seem to dilute those objectionable aspects of our doctrine over time, with the list in the article a long case in point.
How do these doctrines get diluted and then fall out of our doctrine? It appears to be by consensus at the top, followed by tradition. Is this really much different than the Catholics and the rest of the Christian world which relies on tradition as the ultimate source of truth? Are we not just the outgrowth of traditions that came from different roots than the Catholics — but really, following the same patterns of tradition and consensus to determine what is doctrine and what is not? And doesn’t this seem to lessen our distinction as the only true church?
SilentDawning wrote:…How do these doctrines get diluted and then fall out of our doctrine? It appears to be by consensus at the top, followed by tradition. Is this really much different than the Catholics and the rest of the Christian world which relies on tradition as the ultimate source of truth? Are we not just the outgrowth of traditions that came from different roots than the Catholics — but really, following the same patterns of tradition and consensus to determine what is doctrine and what is not? And doesn’t this seem to lessen our distinction as the only true church?
The ideas of authority and priesthood succession seems very similar to the Catholics’ claim that their church is special because of the supposed continuous Apostolic succession all the way back to Peter whereas some Protestants seem to think this kind of authority is unnecessary and the Bible is the ultimate source of authority and truth (Sola Scriptura). Also the relative importance of rituals (saving ordinances) and rules as a type of “works salvation” in the LDS Church seems more like the Catholic Church than many Protestant sects that focus more on faith and grace.
I guess LDS temples remind me of Catholic cathedrals too but I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing to be similar to the Catholic Church in some ways. Personally, I think many Protestant/Evangelical churches put too much emphasis on the Bible for my taste and I actually wish the LDS Church was more “Catholic” as far as not attaching quite so much importance to the Bible the way the JWs and various fundamentalist Christians do.
SilentDawning wrote:And doesn’t this seem to lessen our distinction as the only true church?
I personally see no negatives to that distinction being lessened. Perhaps there are some, related to converts and growth, but it wouldn’t bother me at all if that element wasn’t stressed much.
A good share of what LDS believe is tradition that is believed to be doctrine. I think the what is doctrine essay speaks to that. The anglican/episcopal church uses tradition, reason, and scripture to judge the truth of an assertion and if it’s doctrine and I think that pretty much applies to mormonism though personal revelation and belief in prophets is included. SilentDawning wrote:Are we not just the outgrowth of traditions that came from different roots than the Catholics — but really, following the same patterns of tradition and consensus to determine what is doctrine and what is not? And doesn’t this seem to lessen our distinction as the only true church?
I think this is absolutely true SD. Interesting and good concept to mull over this weekend — and I would also agree that I have no problem with “lessening” our distinction as the only true church. I guess, in my world, there really ISN’T much difference from one religion to the next. They are man-made institutions designed to control human behavoir and ensure civility within the community and population (and I don’t say that in a negative way – I think that organized religion serves it’s purpose). I honestly believe that the LDS church is one of MANY pathways, or in other words, a “true” church that will lead people to “god.” I certainly don’t feel that it is the only way, or the “one and only true church on the face of the earth.” That is just my opinion today.
I think the LDS Church [is/has been] more like Catholicism and Islam than it has ever been like Protestant Christianity, at least in its form and style. Similarities with Catholicism as against Protestantism. * Confession to a priest.
* An infallible leader who speaks to and for God.
* Diktats from the Vatican are to be taken as law, changing doctrine.
* Strong emphasis on tithing.
* Salvation comes through the church, rather than the individual.
* Salvation through works, not just grace.
* An emphasis on families, especially large ones. DIslike of contraception, abortion and pre-marital sex.
* Vestments (I’ll leave that bit at that, perhaps someone will understand me)
* Strong emphasis on apostolic succession, which is bizarre to outsiders. (But strangely enough is similar to the lineage tradition of Buddhism)
* Belief that it is the one true original church and that the others are corrupt.
I don’t know the answer specifically. It could be that those men were wrong, however I tend to have a more orthodox on this view than I do on others. I tend to believe that there are certain things that Heavenly Father revealed or started to reveal and then it turned out the majority of the people were not ready for such a doctrine or it was reserved for personal learning but not something that would be taught in the general church. I have done some study of the Adam-God theory and I personally believe the doctrine to be true, from what I understand about it. It opens my mind to ideas and unifies God much more with mankind. But we don’t have a lot of information on the topic, so it’s impossible to look at it and say “Yup, we understand that doctrine 100% and we decided that it’s not true”. I don’t believe that’s what the church did. I think they realized we didn’t have enough information to speculate on it, there wasn’t enough revealed so they didn’t teach it.
It’s like polygamy. We know it was practiced early in the church, but it’s not something we practice today so there aren’t relief society or priesthood lessons on the topic. Nor do I believe the spirit is revealing a lot to people on the topic because it’s not something that we are called to live right now. I think if we were cursed with this practice
I don’t claim to know anything about polygamy and why or how it was practiced in the early church. It bothers me when I see members trying to share rationalizations of why it was practiced when we simply do not know.
Anyway… I guess I’m saying that just because the church has stopped talking about a certain doctrine on a church wide level doesn’t mean that they’re renouncing it. It might just be that, based on the current times, there are other doctrines that might be much more helpful to the people. I think the Lord prepares his people and then reveals more. It might very well be right for us to be a people with all the knowledge of these things that were previously covered up, and quite possibly have been a bad idea to talk about these things 50 to 75 years ago. Who knows? When I know all things… I will make up my mind then.. .lol
Let me add one more thing… Look at the difference between Ancient Israel under Moses and then the church under Jesus Christ. Do you think that Christ taught that Moses was wrong for being so hard and rigid with the people at that time, and was therefore correcting the law by being much more lenient? The people in ancient Israel were in a different state of mind at that point and needed a certain foundation to be laid before, as a people, they would be ready for a higher law. Jesus repeatedly said that he was not destroying the law, but fulfilling it.
I think it’s safe to say that we live in different times today and are therefore a different kind of people, than were our pioneer ancestors at the time of Joseph Smith, or even 20 years ago!
There is one area in which the Catholic church has it over us, hands down – the arts. Mormon art, architecture and music don’t hold a candle to their Roman Catholic equivalents.
acarlton wrote:It’s like polygamy. We know it was practiced early in the church, but it’s not something we practice today so there aren’t relief society or priesthood lessons on the topic. Nor do I believe the spirit is revealing a lot to people on the topic because it’s not something that we are called to live right now. I think if we were cursed with this practice
I think we ARE cursed for it. As it said in the PBS documentary on The Mormons, plural marriage is like an old man that won’t go away. So many people hold it against us, along with parts of our history. We lose converts over it, and it contributes to the mists of weirdness that plagues our Church. And there isn’t the same bad history in other protestant Churches for us to point at and say “all churches have elements of their history they can’t be proud of…etc'”, we are no different. We can say that compared to the Catholic church with their inquisiton and sale of indulgences, but not about other Christian churches that are against us today.
IN terms of reasons for plural marriage, the BoM does say the Lord commands the practice to “raise seed up unto him”. I point that out not as an apologetic reason, only to say that our own doctrine does give a reason for it that is pretty simple.
SamBee wrote:There is one area in which the Catholic church has it over us, hands down – the arts.
Mormon art, architecture and music don’t hold a candle to their Roman Catholic equivalents.
Oh yes. Totally!
The Catholic Church does a great job at mystery and awe. It is a central theme to their theology and culture, both having had over a thousand years to ferment and develop. They constantly speak of “the mysteries” of God, but leave it at that point on the cusp of one’s imagination — which deeply creative people can then take and run wild with it.
Their rich and elaborate ceremony and ritual, their focus on the mysteries and comfort with things “not quite knowable.” They have acceptable avenues for adherents to explore mysticism and deep elements of the human soul (psyche). Those are all intense breeding grounds for the arts.
SD, acarlton said “cursed WITH this practice” – not “cursed FOR this practice”. There’s a big difference when one little word is changed. Just me being me.
SilentDawning wrote:acarlton wrote:It’s like polygamy. We know it was practiced early in the church, but it’s not something we practice today so there aren’t relief society or priesthood lessons on the topic. Nor do I believe the spirit is revealing a lot to people on the topic because it’s not something that we are called to live right now. I think if we were cursed with this practice
I think we ARE cursed for it. As it said in the PBS documentary on The Mormons, plural marriage is like an old man that won’t go away. So many people hold it against us, along with parts of our history. We lose converts over it, and it contributes to the mists of weirdness that plagues our Church. And there isn’t the same bad history in other protestant Churches for us to point at and say “all churches have elements of their history they can’t be proud of…etc'”, we are no different. We can say that compared to the Catholic church with their inquisiton and sale of indulgences, but not about other Christian churches that are against us today.
IN terms of reasons for plural marriage, the BoM does say the Lord commands the practice to “raise seed up unto him”. I point that out not as an apologetic reason, only to say that our own doctrine does give a reason for it that is pretty simple.
I think that the contemporary LDS gets far too upset about this.
Yes, I don’t agree with 13/14 year olds getting hitched, and I don’t agree with any woman being forced into it, or being abused/raped whatever…
BUT
No, I actually don’t have a problem with someone marrying more than one adult person, if there is mutual consent. Contemporary society does this unofficially anyway. Outside the church, it’s okay to have multiple sexual partners, but not multiple wives/husbands, which seems hypocritical to me. The church is actually behind on this, with accepting the purist monogamy of the 1960s.
If we’re going to beat up the church over anything, I’d go for the priesthood ban. That’s far more serious than polygamy in my humble opinion.
Yeah the parallels are there big time with a smattering of Judeaism. I seriously considered converting one time. The beauty of Mormonism that is so lost to hardliners is that once a Mormon always a Mormon is very similar to Catholisim. Catholics may not always be orthodox but for the most part stay loyal. Mormonism could bennefit from this lesson. Personally after this last conference even with it’s ominous overtones makes me think the church is about to break some big stuff here shortly. I feel like they’re shoring up the foundation of authority to gear up for something really huge come next conference.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.