- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DoubtingTom wrote:
Everyone’s journey is different, but mine was catalyzed entirely by doctrinal issues. It started with the Book of Abraham and all the problems with that, and then moved on to the Book of Mormon. Both of these books are still considered doctrinal and historical. I don’t think you could make any sort of argument that the issues with those two books of scripture are just cultural problems.
You could turn it into an “aligorical” story, or something that happened in another world/dimension, or a history of what would’ve happened had a particular man in Jersusalem not turn down the mandate of God (God wouldn’t let one man’s agency throw off the restoration, would he?). You can practically turn any “doctrine” into a “cultural misconception” with enough work, and still maintain the truthfulness of your religion. Back in JS time, it was considered heresy to suppose that a species in “Gods perfect creation” could go extinct. 500 years ago, you could be burned at the stake for preaching the earth revolves around the Sun, and that the stars have planets of their own. One day I hope all religious leaders will have the courage to say “We’ve been wrong about many things, we might still be wrong about many things, but here is what has brought us peace and happiness. We will adjust as new developments arise.” I can respect that.
dande48 wrote:
DoubtingTom wrote:
Everyone’s journey is different, but mine was catalyzed entirely by doctrinal issues. It started with the Book of Abraham and all the problems with that, and then moved on to the Book of Mormon. Both of these books are still considered doctrinal and historical. I don’t think you could make any sort of argument that the issues with those two books of scripture are just cultural problems.
You could turn it into an “aligorical” story, or something that happened in another world/dimension, or a history of what would’ve happened had a particular man in Jersusalem not turn down the mandate of God (God wouldn’t let one man’s agency throw off the restoration, would he?). You can practically turn any “doctrine” into a “cultural misconception” with enough work, and still maintain the truthfulness of your religion. Back in JS time, it was considered heresy to suppose that a species in “Gods perfect creation” could go extinct. 500 years ago, you could be burned at the stake for preaching the earth revolves around the Sun, and that the stars have planets of their own. One day I hope all religious leaders will have the courage to say “We’ve been wrong about many things, we might still be wrong about many things, but here is what has brought us peace and happiness. We will adjust as new developments arise.” I can respect that.
I could respect that approach as well. That approach would also make it much easier for me to desire to stay on the boat, but would probably cause many many more to abandon ship. So I’m not hopeful that I will see this approach be adopted. That, and Mormonism has built itself up for so long on KNOWING the answers and being the ONE true church. That paradigm will be very difficult to change without making the religion almost unrecognizable.
dande48 wrote:
One day I hope all religious leaders will have the courage to say “We’ve been wrong about many things, we might still be wrong about many things, but here is what has brought us peace and happiness. We will adjust as new developments arise.” I can respect that.
You mean pull out the defibrillators and zap the church so it starts truly believing in articles of faith 9, 11, and 13 again.
:angel: Were those articles culture or doctrine?
nibbler wrote:
You mean pull out the defibrillators and zap the church so it starts truly believing in articles of faith 9, 11, and 13 again.:angel: Were those articles culture or doctrine?
Depends on what suits our interest.
Quote:You mean pull out the defibrillators and zap the church so it starts truly believing in articles of faith 9, 11, and 13 again.
:angel: Were those articles culture or doctrine?To me the leadership could do this. There is enough material that just a few conference talks could begin to make the turn. Uchtdorf has opened that door. As Nibbler points out the Articles of Faith anchor the idea quite well. The church could even begin using JS first- First Vision with out ever having to de-cannonize the Pearl of Great Price one and the boat would still float.
Think about it the church completely removed Joseph’s Lectures on Faith and the ship just kept growing.
I am not holding any hope that it will happen, but it could, easily and more smoothly than fear leads us to believe.
We also could just swing back to Jesus Christ (You know that name in bold we have on our walls) and few would leave. But again not holding my breath.
LookingHard wrote:This is a VERY common request. I know a ex-bishop that has been pushing his stake president to do SOMETHING about all the people leaving. Have a “meet” discussion area. The SP asked permission of SLC and they came back with, “No, stick to the existing meetings.”
It is a two edge sword. I think some folks could be kept in, but when you mix in a few that are “over the edge” and they might “contaminate” those that might be kept in.
The problem with the SP is he asked permission, instead of using his keys as the presiding HP of the Stake, and just do what is best for his stake.
As Bishop, I did lots of things that were NOT in the CHI (Does this surprise anyone?). I got in trouble a few times by my SP, but my feeling was, if he didn’t like the way I was running the ward, he could release me. He never did.
Quote:The problem with the SP is he asked permission, instead of using his keys as the presiding HP of the Stake, and just do what is best for his stake.
As Bishop, I did lots of things that were NOT in the CHI (Does this surprise anyone?). I got in trouble a few times by my SP, but my feeling was, if he didn’t like the way I was running the ward, he could release me. He never did.
Shellie? (can’t script a Southern drawl here.)
I have always been rogue when I lead. How else does innovation happen? It’s the Mormon version of “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” For the most part I come out ahead nearly every time.
*Historic Sidenote – It was a random Stake Presidents idea in 1930 to collect an extra fund for especially needy members. Today we call it fast offering. He later became head of the church.
DarkJedi wrote:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865687282/Psychology-professor-examines-crises-of-faith-at-BYU-Education-Week.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865687282/Psychology-professor-examines-crises-of-faith-at-BYU-Education-Week.html I think I would have loved to heard this talk as opposed to the reporter’s take on it. He does nail it with this insight:
Quote:For this reason, Braithwaite said it is important to distinguish between what he calls “cultural Mormonism,” which is based on Mormon culture and conversations, and “doctrinal Mormonism,” which is based on the scriptural, canonized theology of the Church. “I think many struggles with faith are struggles with cultural Mormonism,” Braithwaite said. “They’re not necessarily rooted in the canonized, theological doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
I tend to agree with this, obviously with some exceptions e.g. gender, sexuality and formerly race.
mom3 wrote:
Quote:The problem with the SP is he asked permission, instead of using his keys as the presiding HP of the Stake, and just do what is best for his stake.
As Bishop, I did lots of things that were NOT in the CHI (Does this surprise anyone?). I got in trouble a few times by my SP, but my feeling was, if he didn’t like the way I was running the ward, he could release me. He never did.
Shellie? (can’t script a Southern drawl here.)
I have always been rogue when I lead. How else does innovation happen? It’s the Mormon version of “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” For the most part I come out ahead nearly every time.
*Historic Sidenote – It was a random Stake Presidents idea in 1930 to collect an extra fund for especially needy members. Today we call it fast offering. He later became head of the church.
Same with Primary and YSA program and a bit the same as RS.Quote:Same with Primary and YSA program and a bit the same as RS.
True – I think SS was similar. Innovation. Something we have stepped miles away from. Shame on us.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.