- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Roy wrote:Forgotten_Charity wrote:
Some mothers must work out of the home. There is no other way. And in this they are justified and for this they should not be criticized. We cannot, however, because of their discomfort over their plight, abandon a position that has been taught by the prophets from the beginning of this dispensation. The question then is, “How can we give solace to those who are justified without giving license to those who are not?”
The comfort they need is better, for the most part, administered individually. To point out so-called success stories inferring that a career out of the home has no negative effect on a family is an invitation to many to stray from what has been taught by the prophets and thus cause members to reap disappointment by and by.
Am I to understand by this that mother’s are only “justified” in working outside the home by pressing financial need? Granted this was given in 1993. I don’t think I’ve heard too much about this lately. Is this still the position of the church? Is it an eternal principle or is it something (like caffienated soda or black people’s premortal indecision) that will some day be revealed by some future PA department to have been a cultural relic?
I try to be as accurate as possible. For that reason I don’t want to put partial quotes in this.
Quote:COMMENTARY
Approaching Mormon Doctrine
SALT LAKE CITY — 4 MAY 2007
Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.
The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.
The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context, and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.
This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.
Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”
Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.
Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology.
So for official doctrine the family proclamation is what we are looking at with the current stance.
Quote:THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
It’s just a matter of if someone gets tiger beliefs from someone else be it religion, family, culture or nation etc. or if they develop or and hold)
(approach)their own beliefs independently. But you can compare the letter, the proclamation, the stance on what is doctrine in the Mormonnnews room and see where it lands.
Personally I have beliefs, I hold them close but beliefs really don’t matter much to me at all. They are all put into the category of opinions only until they can be empirically proven to help society and personal experience for the individual.
Values on the other hand matter a great deal. In this case breaking the value of shut gunning an approach that is highly individual and trying to exhort control over minds of people. If someone wants to exhort others to believe or go along with something over their own beliefs, they have a strong obligation to prove the meta data research behind it. Individual experience shouldn’t be sacrificed for the greater good(outcome doesn’t give permission for how it is achieved). How is more important then why. And a better question to ask personally speaking.
It really should be completely between god and the individual and family. Leave mediators or authorities out of things that aren’t proven to help or hurt and the individual circumstances that represent them.
It’s fine to not accept some talks in General Conference, and that is a personal choice. That solves a lot of things for me.
Old-Timer wrote:It’s fine to not accept some talks in General Conference, and that is a personal choice.
That solves a lot of things for me.
I agree.
But Ray, the question I always come back to. … do your prristhood leaders agree and know this is how you live mormonism?
Mine do. And they kick me out because of it. I’m out.
How do you get away with it? This, is what we call debate and philosophy, a softball. :;
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
You’re a grouch? 
The local leadership roulette wheel can be kind or not. I’ve learned how to frame things appropriately, but I’ve also been lucky to have avoided, for the most part, the kind of issues that have faced you.
It helps that my family hasn’t looked over my shoulder but rather let me be me. It also helps that I haven’t fostered negativity in anything I have done or said, since I had to face a faith transition at a much younger age than everyone else here. That also means I’ve been at this for decades, which helps SO much.
Old-Timer wrote:You’re a grouch?
The local leadership roulette wheel can be kind or not. I’ve learned how to frame things appropriately, but I’ve also been lucky to have avoided, for the most part, the kind of issues that have faced you.
It helps that my family hasn’t looked over my shoulder but rather let me be me. It also helps that I haven’t fostered negativity in anything I have done or said, since I had to face a faith transition at a much younger age than everyone else here. That also means I’ve been at this for decades, which helps SO much.
Ahummm. Is this what it takes to staylds?
Softballs…remember. Not a grouch tonight.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Not a grouch at all. cwald wrote:Old-Timer wrote:It’s fine to not accept some talks in General Conference, and that is a personal choice.
That solves a lot of things for me.
I agree.
But Ray, the question I always come back to. … do your prristhood leaders agree and know this is how you live mormonism?
Mine do. And they kick me out because of it. I’m out.
How do you get away with it? This, is what we call debate and philosophy, a softball. :;
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I think about this all the time because I’m very much a learner as far as living Mormonism the way I want to while not necessarily broadcasting that I’m not living it the way others might think. Fact is, none of us are anywhere near perfect. Living an ideal LDS lifestyle is more pf a perception than a reality.
Kind of a related idea: people say to me often what great sons I have and more than one stake leader has said “Anyone who can raise such fine boys must be a great person.” (They say this because they know my sons and not me because I have been out of the loop.) My sons are great people (and so is my daughter). They are decent Christians, eagle Scouts (the youngest one almost still), top of their graduating classes, athletes, etc. BUT, they have dark sides that only those of us who live with them see – while their outward appearance seems ideal, all is not honey, cream, and roses in real life. I think this is true to one extent or another of all of us. Your bishop who appears to be Peter Priesthood married to Molly Mormon is not all that he appears to be when examined closely enough – much of it is our perception and what he wants us to believe.
So, cwald, (and I’m not sure where this grouchy stuff is coming from
🙂 ) do my priesthood leaders know and agree with how I live Mormonism? They know I have been inactive for many years, they know I have questions, they know I don’t go to SS. Because I had spoken to my bishop prior to coming here and not knowing to keep my mouth shut (and hoping he might offer some assistance) he knows more than my SP – but the SP isn’t clueless, either. However, neither know the true depth of my questions and doubts and there’s no reason for them to know. I relate talks in GC that I really liked (although I may not have watched live), and don’t mention the ones I didn’t like – even if they are brought up as a topic. I am learning the art of speaking in nuance. I do things like quote Pres. Uchtdorf talking about those who struggle for many years with questions, even admitting I am one of those – and leave it at that. If the listener assumes like most do that I have worked through that, fine, and if the listener rightly assumes that I still question, fine – but I don’t say. I bear testimony using believe statements and avoid things like “knowing the church is true.” My priesthood leaders know I live Mormonism, they are not aware of intimate details, and frankly it’s none of their business.Old-Timer wrote:
The local leadership roulette wheel can be kind or not. I’ve learned how to frame things appropriately, but I’ve also been lucky to have avoided, for the most part, the kind of issues that have faced you.It helps that my family hasn’t looked over my shoulder but rather let me be me. It also helps that I haven’t fostered negativity in anything I have done or said, since I had to face a faith transition at a much younger age than everyone else here. That also means I’ve been at this for decades, which helps SO much.
I’m fortunate to have a very considerate and supportive branch president. He’s a very charitable man. I’ve shared many of my concerns/doubts with him. He’s non-judgmental and recognises there are some issues. He doesn’t call me out as an apostate for having those views. To that extent I’m fortunate.
But even he has said that it would be best if I don’t share those views to publicly. Even he is happy for me to believe whatever I like as long as I don’t teach it.
I don’t judge him for that – nor even Elder Packer I suppose. It’s an orthodox church with absolutist claims. They can’t officially condone teaching a middle-way. Perhaps the best they can do is accept middle-way beliefs. Unfortunately that gets to a stage of feeling like a fake. Believing one thing but having to say another thing… or nothing at all.
That happens at work all the time. I can’t say lots of things openly about changes I think ought to be made or how I think the president / VP / my director / etc. doing something wrong – or I have to be very careful in how I word it. If I challenge too strongly even once, I will get a message of some kind to knock it off – or, if it is sensitive enough, I will get fired. Right now, the church leadership is perhaps as non-confrontational about differences of opinion as it’s been in a long time. I celebrate that, even as I wish there was an even better dialogue method available and that all local leaders showed the same restraint.
It’s a little different than work though. At work a coworker might agree and joke with you about the situation. Having someone joke with you or at least be willing to listen makes people feel like the burden is shared. The burden becomes lighter in the sharing. Perhaps no one can do anything about a problem but there are people that agree with me. My opinion is validated, we’re in this together. Heck, change might even occur because business is more apt to adapt than a religious institution. We know about the church leadership lottery but IMO that’s only half of the story. The rank and file can turn on someone with less than orthodox beliefs. The leadership is going to have to set the example of tolerance for a long, long time before the general membership starts being a bit less confrontational about differences of opinion.
Going back to the work analogy. When something comes up I tend to know which of my coworkers I can go to to vent a little. In church it feels like there’s no one. I suppose that internet forums fill that void.
I understand and agree with that, nibbler, in theory and in general practice – but I guarantee there are more members who are potential “colleagues” (although that isn’t the right word) in each ward than most people realize. It’s seeing and recognizing the clues that is important – even though it’s sad they have to be clues rather than being more obvious. Old-Timer wrote:I understand and agree with that, nibbler, in theory and in general practice – but I guarantee there are more members who are potential “colleagues” (although that isn’t the right word) in each ward than most people realize. It’s seeing and recognizing the clues that is important – even though it’s sad they have to be clues rather than being more obvious.
There’s still a difference. I was recently invited into a meeting where I, and fellow managers, were given a forum to express concerns. I tore into the company and their ways of working (it’s 3am, I’ve got such a heavy workload that I have to get up early most mornings to keep up with my ‘to-do’ list). Several other people did the same. As a senior manager in the company I also have people approach me with concern. If I want to change something about the company I can express that concern and will often be invited to join a group (or start a group) to instigate that change. The level to which I can be an “opponent” of the system is far deeper than anything I could consider being at church.
I don’t think it is fair to compare work setting, and the church. One’s “eternal salvation” and heritage is not on the line. If you get fired or leave your job, you go find another one.
If you fired from the church or leave the church, you go to hell for eternity!
Also I dare say that all people, or most people, have way more say and how their job is ran and can approach their boss, much easier than one can approach the Q15.
Generally bosses and companies want input from their employees to make ita more efficient company.
That is the exact opposite of how the church’s ran. Hence the title of this thread.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
mackay11, you realize that your example (“tore into the company”) is more rare than common, right – and that it was done in a setting where criticism was invited, not in private conversations between workers? Without a culture of openly asking, which is nowhere close to universal, what you said, if discovered from a private conversation (in person or via email, for example), would be treated very differently in most organizations. Also, I’ve had more than one Bishop who invited feedback, even if it was critical.
What I’m saying is that “administrative styles” vary radically from ward and branch to ward and branch in the Church, just like they do elsewhere. Absolutely, our general culture contributes to the problem, but it’s not a problem that is unique to the LDS Church or even religion. It’s a human problem – or it wouldn’t have been identified as a tendency of “almost all men, as soon a they get a little power, as they suppose”.
Old-Timer wrote:…
Right now, the church leadership is perhaps as non-confrontational about differences of opinion as it’s been in a long time…
I agree.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.