- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Not sure what happened to that thread… I decided last week to tell the bishop I was available to be called to a calling, given that the current choir director was called last week to be scoutmaster. So today, I was called to be Choir Director again. When I stood up, there were laughs in the congregation. I was Choir Director in this ward for 20 years until 4 years ago…
meanwhile, in priesthoood, the HP group was reviewing
Christopherson’s talk in last conferenceThe teacher was kind-of soft-selling the message, and at one point, some dude in the front (I ALWAYS sit in the back), said that every First Presidency Letter is doctrine. I had to speak up — fully and completely.
Quote:“You know, i’ve been in this church all my life, and my mothers familly back to my great grandfather who was a polygmist in Utah, taking wives 3-7 after Wilford Woodruff supposedly ended polygamy in 1890. Since he was taylor of the general authorities, he was doing it with their permission. We once believed that you had to live the law of polygamy to enter the celestial kingdom. We don’t teach that today, yet that was once ‘doctrine’. And I had to teach a man on my mission that he was somehow less valiant in the pre-existence and therefore couldn’t have the priesthood. That was ‘doctrine’. I celebrated that day in 1978 when that doctrine was reversed, and you know what? Bruce R. McConkie recanted a lot of what he taught on this issue. It happens.
“In 1972 a FP letter came out essentially making birth control against the policy of the church. This wasn’t doctrine — it was a mistake– they had to recind it within years, because it caused a lot of kids in provo to get married and have kids so quickly they couldn’t handle them.
“There’s a reason that ever five or six years, the Church publishes a new General Handbook or Church Handbook of Instructions, and then explicitly instructs the destruction of all prior FP letters, bulletins, and policy manuals: it’s because much of what they pronounce is POLICY and not DOCTRINE. The Doctrine is the truth, the core principles that Jesus is the Christ, that God lives, and that we can receive revelation in our daily lives. The Doctrine is what Christopherson
quoted from Third NephiThe teacher actually appreciated it, he concluded with the quote that Policy changes, but doctrine is supposed to be eternal truth – something I really can agree to. I got a fair number of dirty looks as people left the meeting. Ah well.
Well, my EQ lesson briefly touched on Elder Christofferson’s talk, but my lesson was on how we can do a better job of bringing African American’s into the church. I taped it to share it with the African American Outreach Program, but I feel that I can share it here as well.
It’s about 40 mintues.
Wayfarer, I wish you could have been in my ward today! Very strange talk and you could do much to educate on this subject in my area! Thank you for sharing this! Skippy740, don’t have time now, but intend to listen to your link soon.
I found a nice shady spot by the river and read “The Power of Myth” by Joseph Campbell for my “church” today. It was a wonderful experience. I also met with my bishop later in the afternoon and filled him in on what is going on. I wasn’t sure quite what to expect after reading so many other people’s negative experiences dealing with leadership; but he was surprisingly understanding. He basically just told that he felt it was normal and healthy to question and that he respected my need to take a little time off if that is what I felt I needed to do. I’ve been really blessed thus far with receiving support as I’ve gone through this journey thus far. deleted Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
I read that Christofferson talk and I just found it confusing. All my life, I’ve been taught that what the prophet says is the word of God. If some of it isn’t, then how do we know were to draw the line?? I think I would assert that personal revelation is more important than what the prophet says. If I had been around when the doctrine that blacks were fence-sitters in the war in heaven was taught, I would’ve stopped listening right then. If we’re expected to do all that the prophet says, we should, at the very least, be given the assurance that everything he says is of God. yeah. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
For controversial statements like the one you were making Wayfarer, I ask the question but don’t bring it to any conclusion. I pose the question, and then let people share the SMA’s….and then I follow it up with another probing question. The intelligent people in the room get it — that you are disagreeing implicitly or at least, implying a different meaning than the standard mormon answer. That’s enough.
It’s like Freud said — it was where memory stops that the truth lies when it came to his patients. When he would ask a question about what happened in a dream, and the patient’s answers stopped due to “not being able to remember” — it was behind that curtain that the truth about their unconscious motives existed.
The same is true with this questioning strategy. I think this might be why people are telling me lately I really make people think in HP Group when I teach, even though in my own mind, I’m leading them into unorthodox and often divergent territory.
wayfarer wrote:meanwhile, in priesthoood, the HP group was reviewing
Christopherson’s talk in last conferenceI just skimmed this talk, and maybe it actually says less than people think it does. I think his point is that doctrine is whatever the prophet says it is *right now*. He says that not everything a church *leader* says is doctrine, in light of an earlier statement that it’s up to the prophet to interpret the mind and will of the Lord.
His point is more that the leaders are not accountable for anything that may have been said in the past and I think the BY story is illustrative. Pushing back Johnston’s army was interpreted as the mind and will of the Lord in the morning, but by the afternoon it was something different. I doubt seriously the morning talk was prefixed by “folks, this is just my strongly held opinion, but . . .”.
He also doesn’t draw the obvious connection to the current president of the Church, or the implication that we should maybe wait and see whether metaphorically the morning talk will be reversed in the afternoon, in the morning President Monson will be against gay marriage, but in the afternoon he will claim it was just Tom Monson speaking, etc.
I think this was generally a good talk, but I see it as a gigantic ink blot that you can interpret most any way you want. Largely it gives the leaders plausible deniability to reverse course on any subject any time they choose, to appear to publicly disavow teachings like the King Follett sermon while still really teaching them, to disavow polygamy while still really practicing it, etc.
Also, he speaks of course with authority, but if leaders are not guaranteed to be speaking doctrine, how does this not apply to his talk as well?
You’re right — questions are more diplomatic than pronouncements. I guess I’m just getting old and crotchety… SilentDawning wrote:For controversial statements like the one you were making Wayfarer, I ask the question but don’t bring it to any conclusion. I pose the question, and then let people share the SMA’s….and then I follow it up with another probing question. The intelligent people in the room get it — that you are disagreeing implicitly or at least, implying a different meaning than the standard mormon answer.
I wish I had that skill (or any modicum of tact, for that matter!). I always describe myself as “WYSIWYG but working on something more refined”. That about sums up my teaching style as well.
Not sure why, but most people in my ward seem okay with me ‘keeping it real’. Though a few of the sisters in RS shuddered yesterday when I referred to two of the gods we worship as botox and buttocks – i.e. the perfect, youthful body.
The last 2 Sundays have all had a message around service and kindness. They were so beautifully presented and wonderful examples that brought me to tears. I was grateful I was there to hear those inspired messages. The second speaker in Sacrament Meeting today quoted Elder Packer saying that the teaching that occurs in the temple is symbolic. I loved the reference – and the fact that it was shared by the wife of one the members of the Bishopric.
Old-Timer wrote:The second speaker in Sacrament Meeting today quoted Elder Packer saying that the teaching that occurs in the temple is symbolic.
I loved the reference – and the fact that it was shared by the wife of one the members of the Bishopric.
Cool. The temple prep course says that even the characters are symbolic.
Ray and Mackay- Can either of you get document supports for those quotes, ideas. I keep stuff like that in my scriptures to use at purposeful times.
Thanks
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.