My Best & Worst List

There’s theory and there’s practice. We have the theory of open canon but I haven’t seen us leverage that. To put it into perspective, the CoC is up to section 165 in their D&C and has updates as recent as 2016. We’ve got the pseudo-scripture of tFaPttW.

Maybe it’s semantics. Many sections in the CoC’s D&C could best be described as policy changes. We’ve had lots of policy changes more recently but most changes are chronicled in handbooks, some private, none considered scriptural.

I know what DFU and a few other leaders have said recently about the restoration being ongoing but I think for the longest time leaders have operated with this idea that Joseph restored the church. He was the prophet of the restoration. Any new doctrines have got to go back to something revealed during his tenure as church president. Even one of the more recent changes to call the church by its proper name is rooted in revelation received by Joseph.

So open canon… it feels like we opened the door a crack, let a few more things in, then slammed the door shut again. IMO correlation has contributed to that. It has us looking backwards, not forwards.

And now I wonder… would I want a more open canon? I bet the first thing that would go into a newly open canon would be the proclamation.

Well it is still theoretically open. At least one section – OD2 (1978) was added in living memory.

Here are my thoughts:

GOOD:

Our Treatment of Eve in the Garden of Eden

Start in the Community/Networking – I am grateful for the script that allows me to show up at church and have a foot-in-the-door friendship wise.

Open Cannon Concept

Duality of Individual Revelation line and Organization Revelation line – While this creates paradoxes whenever they come into conflict, and people usually disagree to what degree to privilege a specific line, at least we recognize both lines of revelation.

MEH:

Modesty Lessons

Gender Roles – I feel that the church organization is in the process of evaluating and expanding on how women can serve in the church and in giving them more spaces to voice their opinion in. I feel that there is a long way to go in equalizing authority in the church and home.

BAD:

Executive Functioning in Church – Not only is it divided by gender (for example, my father got weird looks from his quorum when he worked with his home teaching companion to prepare and take over a meal to one of the brethren he ministers to), but I feel that there is hand-waving going on between the genders regarding what executive functioning looks like. I have seen and heard about sisters tuning out during Priesthood lessons (which is fine as far as it goes) – and while I have an idea what the priesthood responsibilities of maintaining the buildings, giving blessings, passing the sacrament looks like, I know that I don’t know about all the executive functioning that goes on behind the scenes in leadership meetings for the brethren. I believe that the brethren do not comprehend what goes into running the church community gatherings (potluck organizing, funeral luncheons, etc.). I feel that the focus on admonishing the sisters in September to run the Home Supported Program without a similar message for the brethren sends a clear message that this executive functioning responsibility gets dumped in the sisters’ lap.

Good:

-Focus on service

-Focus on the family

-Rituals

-Inherent worth of the individual

-Uchtdorf, Christofferson, Holland

Meh:

-Open canon (GC talks are generally accepted as “canon”)

-Public work projects (housing, retail developments, beautification projects)

-Ministering program

Bad:

-Obsession with “truth”

-Obsession with Church leaders, especially the prophet

-Determining “truth” through “feelings of the spirit”

-Worthiness (you can have “worth” but not be “worthy”?)

-Pious fraud

-Judgement of “others”

It’s not officially in the scriptures but it is most certainly quoted as if it were scripture, even during GC.

Probably another semantics issue. I was referring to official canon but the practiced canon is open. Essentially the exact opposite of what I was saying in that other comment. 🙂

Probably another semantics issue.

My definition of LDS scripture/doctrine comes down to whatever I could say is scripture (or not scripture) in SS or over the pulpit without getting lynched.

When it comes to open canon, I think it’s a huge mixed blessing. The attitude of it is helpful (in not taking the scriptures too seriously), but let’s be honest. So much of this stuff just doesn’t hold up. Jane Austen provides more insight into human nature and virtue than the Book of Mormon (I’ll put the New Testament on par), and light years ahead of the lawyer-written Proc which is mystifying in how little it understands human nature. It’s really just a prescribing of gender and family roles to uphold culture wars and fight gay marriage. It’s not wise. It’s not insightful. When I find that someone likes it, I instantly think less of them.

Nibbler:

BAD:

Obsession with worthiness. Holding worthiness interviews. Temple recommend status. Pigeonholing people into a label – investigator, convert, inactive, worthy, not in good standing, etc.

Excellent point. Also, the idea that anything we do “earns” us God’s grace or that some of us have earned it and others have not. The new word is “qualifying” for grace.

We have a bonus program we do for our employees, and I was talking with one of them because she was upset that she had missed one of the growth goals she’s been assigned, and she said it wasn’t fair if she wasn’t paid anyway. I told her she needed to get rid of that idea because her being paid was a byproduct of two things: 1) company growth, and 2) our generosity at being willing to share profits with our employees. You don’t get a bonus just for doing the basics.