False Doctrine?

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, one of the things I love most about the idea of continuing revelation is that it kind of destroys the idea of “creeds” – or what I call “immutable doctrines”.

Individual church leaders and members naturally struggle with the principle of embracing uncertainty and humility in ALL things; hence, they latch onto SOMETHING that they can treat as a “creed” – call it what they may. I believe that pretty much anything that attains to the status of “creed” is “false” – since I just don’t believe we know enough to say it never will change. Maybe “there is a God” fits, but even there I have to add, “whatever that means”.

So, for me, I also don’t care about what we call them – as long as we don’t treat them as “creeds”.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

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.

I thought we were all students of Ray in learning to parse :geek:

While others may not distinguish the difference…and start to call all things doctrine, that doesn’t mean they’re right. Making distinctions used to not really matter to me, and I didn’t think of things deeply. Now I do.

To me, a practice or teaching is much different than a doctrine of the gospel, and not distinguishing that can be what leads to disillusionment or confusing outcomes to expectations. Others may expect me to adhere to something, but that doesn’t make it right or wrong for me, either, just because it is generally accepted. I’ll drink my Dr. Pepper, and I’ll answer my temple recommend questions honestly.

I don’t expect God to change form or who He is. I can accept God uses different practices in different times to fulfill his work. Accepting there are different things that cannot change or and some things that can change in the Church help me develop faith and confidence in my God. Should I quote Uchtdorf again??? Some things are of weightier matter than others…regardless of what others call it, it is helpful for me to call it correctly as I see it and understand the differences so I can prioritize my thoughts, and therefore, my beliefs, and therefore, my actions. That helps me StayLDS.

[Anonymous]

Heber, in the spirit of parsing , I submit the following – with my bolding to highlight the differences:

Quote:

doctrine: 1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine; 2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine; 3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church. (synonyms: tenet, dogma, theory, precept, belief.)

Quote:

creed: 1. any formula of religious belief, as of a denomination; 2. any system or codification of belief or of opinion; 3. an authoritative, formulated statement of the chief articles of Christian belief, as the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed.

I think the issue is when we take the concept of “doctrine” and conflate it with the concept of “creed”. In this sense, the closest thing in the LDS Church to creeds are the Articles of Faith. Everything else (and even those, in the truest sense) is “just” doctrine.

[Anonymous]

I concede…to the resident parser, Ray. Amen.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

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?

They do set a doctrine for baptism:

D&C 20:37 This is OFFICIAL DOCTRINE. It is canonized in our scripture

Quote:

And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

Pretty simply and straight-forward. It’s not complicated. It doesn’t require us to obey every single thing another human being wants to add to this covenant. They can do what they want. But I agreed to that covenant above. We repent. We are baptized. We receive the Holy Ghost, and from that point forward, the Spirit guides is by personal revelation in how to serve Jesus Christ with determination to the end.

How is the form of that service? God will tell us via the Holy Ghost We can listen to people, even prophets, and take their wise advice. But we are agents responsible for our own destiny and experience.

Heber13 wrote:

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 agree. I am at opposition with leaders who promote the 14 Fundamentals. But we are BOTH still Mormons, and I respect them as leaders. I just think they are wrong. It’s not that big a deal. We are both following our conscience and living as we interpret the whisperings of the Spirit. I choose to reject the 14 Fundamentals. That’s fine. Some choose to promote it. That’s fine too. Whatever this leads to, is where it needs to go, and is where God wants the world to evolve.

[Anonymous]

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.

My feelings exactly. I don’t really care too much about the distinctions. I’ve decided the inner compass is my guide for what I should do going forward. I’ve been lambasted in meetings for espousing what I THOUGHT was true doctrine, only to find out I had greedily assimilated ideas someone was simply opining about in a lesson — blindly thinking it was doctrine. I ran into this often when I was new in the Church.

No more. What I believe and do is ultimately up to me — and no one else. Now, that doesn’t mean I’m not going to listen to and consider the ideas of Church leaders, but I’m not going to follow blindly anymore. The inner compass rules.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“SilentDawning

No more. What I believe and do is ultimately up to me — and no one else. Now, that doesn’t mean I’m not going to listen to and consider the ideas of Church leaders, but I’m not going to follow blindly anymore. The inner compass rules.

I like this, and I think I hear it in one way or another from most people here at staylds as opposed to the more prevelent just follow the prophet, don’t ask, don’t question, even if he (the prophet) is wrong God will make it right, thinking that is IMO embeded and espoused by the 14 F’s and seen in many LDS congregations.

f4h1

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

a “creed” – call it what they may. I believe that pretty much anything that attains to the status of “creed” is “false” – since I just don’t believe we know enough to say it never will change.

I remember hearing GBH on Larry King say that women could receive the priesthood if God so directed through the living prophet. At the time that was a puzzler for me. Aren’t there eternal principles and aren’t the gender differences on of those? It gave me something to think about. What else could change in the future?

Also in reading the scriptures, I am finding that there is enough to support my personal understanding and interpretation- but there is also enough contrary to my particular framework. It would seem that the scriptures do not lay out a clean unequivocal handbook for eternal understanding. Even with the BOM and modern scriptures, there could be many interpretations. Often accepting these modern scriptures means accepting the current interpretation, emphasis, and spin that these things are given from church leaders, but as many here are discovering- there is some wiggle room even there.

So I continue to love the scriptures that support me and ignore or explain away those that would rain on my parade, I just do so more consciously than in the past. I am coming to own “the gospel according to Roy,” and I make no pretenses that it should work for anybody except for me.

[Author]

Posts