- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I came across this quote on LDS.org. It is from the I Have a Question section of the Ensign, answered by Gerald Lund. “Generally, the First Presidency issues official doctrinal declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement.”
Many of us rely on the “What is Doctrine” essay on the front page of this site to help us define doctrine in a way that makes life in the Church more bearable and peaceful. Which interpretation do you think prevails — the one in the What is Doctrine essay, or the quotation above (full article is at the link above from lds.org). Why?
There may not be conflicting ideas. “Official” doctrine is sparse. Generally accepted doctrine and doctrine that is taught regularly at church, which the 1st Presidency does not feel obliged to canonize, is more what we encounter and the statement that it is “generally” accepted means it is not, by definition, totally accepted or even required to be accepted. I feel I was raised in the church to obey with exactness and always focused to do that, because doctrine was doctrine. When I grew up, I put off such childish ideas, and realized we all see through a glass darkly…so doctrines of the church are not as cut and dry as I limited myself to previously.
SilentDawning wrote:I came across this quote on LDS.org. It is from the I Have a Question section of the Ensign, answered by Gerald Lund.
“Generally, the First Presidency issues official doctrinal declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement.”
Many of us rely on the “What is Doctrine” essay on the front page of this site to help us define doctrine in a way that makes life in the Church more bearable and peaceful. Which interpretation do you think prevails — the one in the What is Doctrine essay, or the quotation above (full article is at the link above from lds.org). Why?
So then by this standard everything in the church could be reasonably interpreted as doctrine with greater and lesser degrees of support. Had the general and pervasive belief in a particular doctrine been incorrect there surely would have been an official doctrinal declaration made to correct the misunderstanding. By the FP’s silence, there is tacit confirmation of the belief being a “doctrine.”
BTW – This is not consistent with my understanding of what constitutes binding doctrine. (I use the term “binding doctrine” to identify items that must at least be dealt with in some fashion other than just dismissed as, “Oh, that was just BY’s opinion.”) There are many things in the J of D that I need not concern myself with. The lack of an official doctrinal declaration saying that “Brother so and so” was wrong does not make these statements any more viable for me (or needing of defence against detractors.) Similarly, there are many things that are believed today that I do not want to (nor should I) be held to. Just because it is generally accepted in my time does not make it binding upon me.
For the sake of my sanity and maintaining my relationship (and also self identification) with the church, I must go with the less restrictive definitions provided in the “What is Doctrine” essay.
At the very top of the article, it says “not an official source of doctrine, given as guidance”. So, this we can treat as a man’s opinion after considering it. The prophets can’t even agree on this issue. BKP said that that the Proclamation to the World “is considered revelation”, yet they took that part our of the printed version. ???????
I
SilentDawning wrote:Which interpretation do you think prevails
The interpretative we choose is always the one that prevails. It prevails because we like it the most
Deep down, we spend time doing what we want to do – except in cases where, for whatever reason, we can’t control ourselves. Deep down, we choose to believe whatever we want to believe – except in cases where, for whatever reason, we can’t control ourselves.
Official doctrine is whatever we make of it – and, in almost all cases, it only gets us in “trouble” when it’s in direct opposition to what someone in a position of authority believes (a spouse, a parent, a leader, our own selves, etc.) AND we make a fight out of it. (in ALL group settings, not just in the Church)
So, for me, doctrine is whatever I make it to be – and communal doctrine is whatever the majority of the group (branch, ward, stake, world-wide leadership, etc.) makes it to be.
If you don’t believe that, to use an example from our own ranks, “doctrine” is a bit different in my ward than it is in the branch of one of our participants here.
Would it be less confusing if we asked the question, “what is false doctrine?” I doubt it. From my first days in the Chruch the “doctrine” discussed in the article is what was taught. It is still taught, see
Gospel PrinciplesChapter 47. The article in the Ensignimplies it is doctrine despite the disclaimer. Many members consider the Ensignscripture so that makes it doctrine in their eyes. More than one President of the Church has declared it. But when you consider what President Hinkley said and what the 14 Fundamentals say maybe it isn’t doctrine. I’m not sure what constitutes doctrine or what definition to use. As much as I like the essay I wouldn’t necessarily agree with all it says nor do I agree with the statement from Gerald Lund.
Just call me confused.
Thoreau, Fwiw, I understand that you are confused – but I prefer to think of it in terms of being “free”. The historical ambiguity is what makes it possible for me, in completely good conscience, to construct my own understanding – and that freedom is precious to me.
I know that communal norms and culture eternally struggle to constrict differences and maximize safety by eliminating confusion, but “the truth shall make you free” means something different to me. “We see through a glass, darkly” is one of the most liberating statements in the history of humanity, imo – since it gives us the ability to decide on our own what we will believe. I like being an “agent unto myself” – even as I choose to be that agent within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Old-Timer wrote:Thoreau,
Fwiw, I understand that you are confused – but I prefer to think of it in terms of being “free”. The historical ambiguity is what makes it possible for me, in completely good conscience, to construct my own understanding – and that freedom is precious to me.
I know that communal norms and culture eternally struggle to constrict differences and maximize safety by eliminating confusion, but “the truth shall make you free” means something different to me. “We see through a glass, darkly” is one of the most liberating statements in the history of humanity, imo – since it gives us the ability to decide on our own what we will believe. I like being an “agent unto myself” – even as I choose to be that agent within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Two comments. For a period there, I looked at the Church’s stance on formal doctrine with cynicism. They tend to not openly proclaim was is “official doctrine” and what is not. They seem to think that whatever falls from the lips of people in authority should be believed and obeyed without much thought — at least, this is the attitude of most mainstream members. “When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done” epitomizes this assumptive thinking. The absence of formal doctrine gives the Church (or so I thought) licence to preach anything it wants at any time without being bound to previous declarations or statements, or even the scriptures. For me, it represented yet another extension of their desire to have the most power possible over the thinking of their members — with good intentions.
However, I now realize that this very ambiguity is my license for individual freedom of thinking in our Church. If there is no overt FORMAL doctrine, if one prophet can overrule uncategorical, absolute statements of previous prophets, if policy can overrule the meaning of scripture that has been accepted before the Church, then really – do we have FORMAL doctrine? Am I bound to assimilate
everythingthat comes over the pulpit without regarding to its impact on my emotional/physical/financial/marital health, after I consider it honestly and in consultation with God? I think not. Their very ambiguity, which I thought was meant to keep their options proclaim anything they want at any given time, provides me with freedom to choose what I believe. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
In fact, at some point, a GA might get wind of what I say and proclaim in conference “What SD said in his post on October 14th at StayLDS is ALL WRONG”. Guess what? If after reconsidering this GA’s reasons, and prayeringfully purging myself of any impure motives that might have led me to that conclusion, and finding none, I can soundly reject that counsel as his opinion — unless the Lord directs otherwise.
Now, one has to take Ray’s advice. You can’t confront the current hierarchy about those divergent thoughts you may have. It would have been wrong to state this over the pulpit. But no one will ever know or challenge my thinking on many issues that are simply not observable — unless I grandstand it. Yes, silently being a SELF-DIRECTED Mormon is another way to Stage 5 thinking, according to my personal definition in my signature line.
I wonder what circumstances would require a person to grand-stand personal views of doctrines? I have my personal convictions on the Word of Wisdom, and I accept to get a temple recommend in this church there are standards I am willing to obey. Those two different positions don’t come into conflict for me, I just allow them to coexist, like different layers on top of each other, not in conflict with each other… and find benefit and meaning in allowing the symbolic and literal interpretations to coexist. And I don’t need to talk differently about the Word of Wisdom than others in my ward. I don’t need to trick myself into thinking about it or deciding how to obey or disobey it or answer the temple recommend question about it.
I don’t feel I have to grand stand or defend myself. I’m not uneasy by words over the pulpit about it.
What doctrines would require that? Anyone have examples?
Heber13 wrote:5. You are teaching Gospel Doctrine, and you come out with a StayLDS unorthodox view of some aspect of our religion. You think it’s a tame thing, such as saying that the leaders do make mistakes and that the GA’s advice is not always inspired, that it’s not always clear what is opinion and what is inspiration. That the individual needs to run all the words of the prophets and apostles and GA’s through their own inspiration and personal circumstances, and that even prophet’s advice is not necessary appropriate for everyone.
A priesthood holder in leadership in the meeting starts shaking his head vehemently and then objects and calls you out in front of the class of people. (this happened to me, although it was over an even more benign issue — regarding why D&C suggests we use water instead of wine for sacrament purposes).
Heber — you commented that you wouldn’t be comfortable sharing these ideas — probably the one in the first paragraph. I actually taught that once — in a Gospel Essentials class. We had some old-timers with last names that spoke of strong pioneer roots. Names like Pratt, Smith, and Romney. Guess what? They all started nodding their heads when I said that — all of them!!! I was totally surprised and it helped me realize that this StayLDS idea — that your own clock MATTERS — can fly even in a room with a bunch of TBM’s. In fact, I think the idea was palatable to the non-members as the attitude that “When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done” only scares people and solidifies the notion we are a cult, which we are not….
These seem like realistic situations that would prompt me to think about how I should act with integrity, honesty, and charity…for my benefit, my family seeing my examples and others I interact with. They don’t require I suffer in silence, or grand-stand my beliefs…which seem like opposite extremes on the scale of how I could respond…but probably somewhere in the middle-way between these.
In situation #1, if I felt right about how I pay, I would declare myself a full tithe payer. Leaders may preach to me their interpretations, but they can only ask me if I’m a full tithe payer, they can’t tell me I’m not.
Situation #2 seems it would require restraint. If I was teaching, I might feel it important to share my view, or I might not. If I did and the stake presidency member made those statements, I could defer to authority in that class, even though I completely disagree. I don’t have to prove to others my point of view, and I don’t have to make my view match others’, even leaders. I have free agency…which doesn’t require I grand-stand it. Part of teaching is allowing the class to draw their conclusions, just present the materials and move on.
Situation #3 is similar to my earlier post. I understand there are standards I must meet to be considered worthy to attend the temple. I either meet those standards or I don’t. Either way, I hold my relationship to God apart from a recommend. I think most of the TR questions are Yes/No questions. I mostly stick to Ys/No answers, without needing to complicate things. Most leaders conducting interviews do not pry or make it a judgement of “good enough” answers…they just ask the questions.
#4- I would defer to authority and plan on the right amount of time to work towards the baptism..or if the leader was being overly harsh, talk to them about it. If pushed too far, I would escalate up the chain of command or lose the motivation to have my child baptized. Again, there is no one way…but I don’t turn to grand-standing it or silently suffering as my options…there are other constructive options…but since I look at everything symbolically…not baptizing the child is not a bad option to me.
#5 I don’t think #5 is realistic to me…I wouldn’t feel comfortable teaching those thoughts to a class of believers that I don’t think would benefit from that discussion.
Those are my thoughts. Grandstanding to me sounds like a defensive posture and I don’t need to defend my beliefs to others. Silence can be appropriate but not in a cowardly way.
I was writing my comments under BN’s “Why” thread, but given the tangential nature of my comments, I thought it more appropriate to post here instead. Heber13 wrote:SilentDawning wrote: none of whom claim one true religion, a perfect organization and a Divine head.
I’m not sure that middle one is claimed. I’ve never heard that…although I think many people deduce such…because if its led by God, and its God’s church…wouldn’t it be perfectly organized? But actually, its not…and I don’t think they claim that. Especially since they are changing the organization all the time.
Perhaps SD is referencing the couplet, “the church is perfect, but the people aren’t.”
Quote:“I remember talking with a member of the stake presidency after priesthood one Sunday. He had made the statement that, “The church is perfect, but the people aren’t.” I was asking him what he meant by “perfect.” His first definition was that the organization was perfect with all the offices of the priesthood. I asked him how that could be since we no longer have a Presiding Church Patriarch? Was the organization perfect before or after this office in the priesthood was phased out? This went on for a while. At several junctures he asked about my testimony and I reassured him that this conversation was purely academic about the definition of the word “perfect” and not the seed of apostasy. Finally, he suggested that the church is perfect in that it is divine (or originated with God). I personally like that answer. But if “perfect” means “of divine origin” then the people are perfect too! Are we not all children of God? Each one of us a “god in embryo” possessing the divine spark within us? We would then need to change the phrase to “The church is perfect and the people are too!”
Well, I felt that I had made a very compelling argument for why the word “perfect” was completely inappropriate in this context. He just shrugged his shoulders and told me that the way of things were quite clear to his simple mind.
It was then that I had an epiphany. When he said the church was perfect, what he meant was that he really likes the church. He could not be dissuaded from saying the church is perfect because that has been a socially acceptable and appropriate of saying what he feels (i.e. the church is good, the church is of God, the church is meaningful in my life).
LDS church leaders are not theologians. They have gained their assumptions about the church in the same way as the rest of us – through immersion in the culture and atmosphere and being taught by teachers that are themselves ill trained volunteers. LDS leaders, all the way up to the President, may make claims but unless they are ratified by the body of the church they are not binding upon the membership (and even then the individual must make personal interpretations through the light of Christ within).
But what then are the official church doctrines/claims? There seems to be such a sliding scale and so much room to interpret that it can so difficult to pin down what the church claims actually are. The “What is official church doctrine?” article presented one viewpoint that may be essentially summarized as “the standard works,” but we are not obligated to believe every word, passage, or story from the scriptures to retain our membership in good standing. Even the Articles of Faith (such an official sounding name) that have been ratified by the church body are not required belief points. Another fall back position that I have heard expressed here is the TR questions, but even these are open to personal interpretation and conscience.
There is another oft cited axiom that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Could this not apply to spiritual truth and church doctrines – that they are very much in the mind of the beholder or the collective minds of the beholders? Given this definition, collective spiritual truth and generally held church doctrines can be as fluid as public opinion. No wonder it is so hard to get a fix on them. What do you think
:I’m actually thankful for this. The fact that it’s hard to pin down what is exactly official doctrine is actually liberating, because it means you can decide for yourself on many issues. The only place you get hung up is a) When there are policies and procedures in place that force you to place your personal integrity on the line (forcing you to lie about something that is hardcore policy). Such as “do you pay your tithing?”. If you don’t, you have to, out of perseonal integrity, accept the consequences of saying yes – which will mean not gaining access to the temple or performing certain priesthood advancement ordinances.
b) When your contrarion ideas are visible to the whole world. So, if I believe in being a nudist at Church, I’ll run into problems. But if I think it’s OK to alter my garments so they fit me properly, and I feel right about it before God, no one knows this, there is no problem. My conscience is my only reaction that is possible in this case.
One article I read said “the Chruch as been criticized as a Church with no official doctrine”. I love that now. It just to bug me but now I see it grants the individual great latitude in what they believe. Provided one has the necessary filters when interfacing with people who are adamant certain cultural values and even flawed opinions of former and current Church leaders are official doctrine.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.