- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
There has been ample discussion on certain boards about the 14 fundamentals talk and how it is preaching false or misleading doctrine. So I ask myself how is it false doctrine? Or how are all the other things that bug us false doctrine. Is the definition of false doctrine “doctrine that bugs us”? To have false doctrine it would follow that you would have to have true doctrine. So what is true doctrine, “stuff we like”. Who is to say what is true and what is false doctrine. Personally I think all doctrine for the most part is made up to suit the times and person expounding it. In fact I now have my own doctrine on many subjects. To me it is true doctrine, but at least I am willing to admit it is my doctrine and subject to examination and I get to change it when I get new information. So ultimately I guess there is no real true or false doctrine, because doctrine is like faith. It is not provable or verifiable except by pointing to other doctrine that supports it. Which is like proving the Book of Mormon true by showing how it is like the Bible. Doctrine is just a persons perception at the time. GA’s just have a platform to expound their doctrine. That is as long as it is not to crazy and they get censured.
I agree Cadence. I thought about this myself as I listened to the speaker in SM expound on his interpretation of the atonement. I called it false doctrine but I also thought that it was false according to my own understanding of the atonement and my own beliefs around it. And that brings up the question what does “true” really mean and conversely what does “false” mean. So I imagine what we will have to say from now on is that so and so stated something we don’t agree with or that we think doesn’t align with LDS thought? Cadence wrote:There has been ample discussion on certain boards about the 14 fundamentals talk and how it is preaching false or misleading doctrine. So I ask myself
how is it false doctrine?Or how are all the other things that bug us false doctrine. Is the definition of false doctrine “doctrine that bugs us”?To have false doctrine it would follow that you would have to have true doctrine. So what is true doctrine, “stuff we like”. Who is to say what is true and what is false doctrine.Personally I think all doctrine for the most part is made up to suit the times and person expounding it. In fact I now have my own doctrine on many subjects. To me it is true doctrine, but at least I am willing to admit it is my doctrine and subject to examination and I get to change it when I get new information. So ultimately I guess there is no real true or false doctrine, because doctrine is like faith. It is not provable or verifiable except by pointing to other doctrine that supports it.…GA’s just have a platform to expound their doctrine… As far as I’m concerned, many Mormon doctrines like the WoW, tithing, temple marriage, testimony, one trueness, etc. are all false doctrines at least in terms of the way these principles are currently interpreted and implemented. Of course, I don’t expect most active members to agree with me on this and it looks like commonly accepted Mormon doctrines are mostly just a combination of the prevailing opinions of active members and what the current Church Presidency and apostles, correlated lesson manuals, and official Church publications say they are supposed to be.
This is almost like trying to distinguish between official doctrines, policies, and traditions. I can’t really tell the difference because many deeply engrained policies and traditions might as well be official doctrines for practical purposes whether they are explicitly defined as official doctrines by the Church or not. Even though I think most doctrines are basically just opinions that can’t really be proven I still think some questionable “doctrines” are more blatantly false or offensive than others. In my opinion that’s the main problem some people have with the “14 fundamentals” because they just don’t like the way it advocates blind obedience to men and it brings up all kinds of glaring problems and contradictions where Church leaders have clearly been wrong or disagreed with each other contrary to the unrealistic expectations set by this talk.
I enjoyed this post, Cadence. “Doctrine” is squishy and man-made.
That pretty much sums it up for me.
The Spirit tells me the 14 Fundamentals are false teachings. That’s what my Church trained me to do when I come across something that requires understanding — follow the Spirit. I apologize to any leaders who find my opinion troubling. Too bad though. It’s nothing personal. I’m doing what I was taught to do, and it has worked really good for me so far. God’s in charge. If he wants to tell me something different: He has my contact information, and knows how to reach me. DevilsAdvocate wrote:As far as I’m concerned, many Mormon doctrines like the WoW, tithing, temple marriage, testimony, one trueness, etc. are all false doctrines at least in terms of the way these principles are currently interpreted and implemented. Of course, I don’t expect most active members to agree with me on this and it looks like commonly accepted Mormon doctrines are mostly just a combination of the prevailing opinions of active members and what the current Church Presidency and apostles, correlated lesson manuals, and official Church publications say they are supposed to be.
I’m active and I agree. Sort of. I don’t think of them as false but as incomplete or lesser doctrines. And I believe we live them because of the hardness of our hearts (collectively) and of the world around us. Jesus explained that the law of Moses had been given because the Children of Israel were hard hearted (Mark 10:6). IMO, little has changed.
We were taught consecration but we pay tithing.
We were taught purity but we settle for chastity.
We were taught to treat our bodies as temples but we codify clean and unclean foods.
We were taught to look upon the heart and we judge each other by the number of our earrings or the color of our dress shirt.
Some of the lesser laws I find useful, others, I find frustrating but I recognize that some people are still learning through the lesser laws (as they are a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ) and so I follow Paul’s example and refuse to eat the meat offered to idols (1 Cor.
. I see my job as not necessarily to point out where the doctrine is wrong, but to lead others to the higher principles of which these lesser laws are merely types and shadows.Quote:This is almost like trying to distinguish between official doctrines, policies, and traditions. I can’t really tell the difference because many deeply engrained policies and traditions might as well be official doctrines for practical purposes whether they are explicitly defined as official doctrines by the Church or not. Even though I think most doctrines are basically just opinions that can’t really be proven I still think some questionable “doctrines” are more blatantly false or offensive than others. In my opinion that’s the main problem some people have with the “14 fundamentals” because they just don’t like the way it advocates blind obedience to men and it brings up all kinds of glaring problems and contradictions where Church leaders have clearly been wrong or disagreed with each other contrary to the unrealistic expectations set by this talk.
It’s true that we teach mixed messages, especially when it comes to our prophets. But that’s because we have a mixed audience. We have some people who are at the stature of Eldad and Medad (Numbers 11) and can act contrary to policy or procedure because they are led by the Spirit. They are able to distinguish between the letter and the spirit of the law.
Unfortunately, 68 out of every 70 (per the story in Numbers) have to be told what to do. And at least one of them will be highly offended that our Eldads and Medads don’t conform and their angry response will range from backbiting in the foyer, to writing the Church office building, to leaving the church.
IMO, some people simply aren’t ready to move beyond the lesser laws and a dependency on another man to ascend Sinai. They’re not prepared to climb the mountain themselves. And you know what, if that’s where they are, that’s okay. We all progress as we are prepared to do so. Those of us who are working past dogmatism just need to be an example of the believers by emulating Christ, trying not to offend and allowing The Plan to function as it was designed.
Oh and always remember that a calling is just as often to promote spiritual growth as in response to it. A man’s stature before the Lord isn’t measured in terms of his office in the church.
(Gospel according to MnG
Brian Johnston wrote:The Spirit tells me the 14 Fundamentals are false teachings. That’s what my Church trained me to do when I come across something that requires understanding — follow the Spirit. I apologize to any leaders who find my opinion troubling. Too bad though. It’s nothing personal. I’m doing what I was taught to do, and it has worked really good for me so far. God’s in charge. If he wants to tell me something different: He has my contact information, and knows how to reach me.
This is the best comment I’ve heard yet to explain the 14 Fs. VERY VERY well said.
I wanted to add another thought that came to mind as I was reading the 14 Fundamentals thread. In Jacob, we see the prophet having to say some pretty awful comments to a mixed audience. He even openly acknowledges that many people in attendance are hearing a message that doesn’t apply to them. Shift gears. When I was younger, I took everything the prophet said and I beat myself up trying to live the perfect LDS life (or what I imagined that mythological existence was). One day, while reading Jacob, I realized that I had been taking messages to heart that really were not intended for me. It also helped me to read in Jude that people need to be taught in different ways because we are different. Jude identifies two groups – one that is motivated by fear and another that is motivated by compassion. Often the messages given by our prophets are aimed at the ones who are the least attentive!
Sorry to add to what I already rambled. Over the years, I’ve developed a passion for the scriptures (if that isn’t already obvious) because it’s in them that I’ve found a lot of the answers to ‘what ails me’ about the church.
Cadence Right on! CD Two thumbs up!
DA As always- especially love your opening sentence…
Quote:As far as I’m concerned, many Mormon doctrines like the WoW, tithing, temple marriage, testimony, one trueness, etc. are all false doctrines at least in terms of the way these principles are currently interpreted and implemented.
Ray ..
Quote:“Doctrine” is squishy and man-made.
:thumbup: Cwald you saved me from having to paste Brian’s entire post.
That’s what my Church trained me to do when I come across something that requires understanding — follow the Spirit.My sentiments exactly! That’s what my church trained me to do also.
I listened to Elder Costa’s “14 fundamentals” talk last night for the first time, I really was shocked!
f4h1
Cadence wrote:Doctrine is just a persons perception at the time.
This is the hard part for me to accept. The Church can’t function without a doctrine we all accept when entering the waters of baptism, could it? The Church is the authority to set a belief system. We simply choose to accept it or reject it. Perhaps the church leaders set the doctrines based on their perceptions at the time, but we can’t all have our own doctrines, can we?
I don’t think tithing or WoW or polygamy are doctrines, they are practices. Practices can change.
I think that is one thing the article states, called “What is Official Mormon Doctrine” on the StayLDS.com website library. I think there are fewer doctrines then we think, sometimes, but there are doctrines set forth.
The Church states Heavenly Father is a perfect, resurrected man, and His First Born Son, Jesus Christ is a separate perfected and resurrected being, and the Holy Ghost is a spirit without physical body, but a separate being from God or Jesus Christ.
If that doctrine is proven false, I don’t know how the church could continue to function? Am I wrong?
Heber, I appreciate your comment! There is a lot less doctrine than we think. Often we use the word doctrine when we really mean “precepts”.
Precept:
1. a commandment or direction given as a rule of action or conduct.
2. an injunction as to moral conduct; maxim.
3. a procedural directive or rule, as for the performance of some technical operation.
Our precepts are supposed to be progressive. They should evolve as we better understand and apply doctrine. Line upon line, precept upon precept.
Good clarification about precepts, mercyngrace. I also think we have teachings, that can differ from doctrine. Teachings can also be progressive (i.e. developing gradually), even though I would not say our church is progressive (i.e. supporting social and political change that aims to make a system fairer)
mercyngrace wrote:here is a lot less doctrine than we think. Often we use the word doctrine when we really mean “precepts”.
Precep
That is very good way to look at it. I will use that lingo more at church, rather than doctrine.
I’m not so concerned if its a called a doctrine, precept, practice, standard operating procedure, commandment, procedural directive, guideline, policy, law, directive, proclamation, or just a good idea. I don’t even know the technical difference between many of those things. So, if it comes from God, I’m in. If it comes from the mind of men then I’ll make up my own mind if it is True of False. Sorry I’m still stage I, you know double-digit IQ, your average joe. f4h1
Fatherof4husbandof1 wrote:I’m not so concerned if its a called a doctrine, precept, practice, standard operating procedure, commandment, procedural directive, guideline, policy, law, directive, proclamation, or just a good idea. I don’t even know the technical difference between many of those things. So, if it comes from God, I’m in. If it comes from the mind of men then I’ll make up my own mind if it is True of False. Sorry I’m still stage I, you know double-digit IQ, your average joe.
f4h1
I sort of agree. It does not matter what you call it. If you are expected to adhere to it as a sign of your worthiness it is all the same. it can be difficult in the minds of some people to differentiate what is what since they are all perceived to be important.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.