- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
wayfarer wrote:
Shawn, please read 3 Ne 11:31-40. I will venture to say that much of what you think is core LDS doctrine is not the Lord’s doctrine.
I definitely remember our conversations about doctrine.🙂 I believe there is more to it, though. There are important teachings and practices that are not specifically part of the “Doctrine of Christ.”Stage 5 requires looking at the things the church teaches, not differently than other stage 3 thInkers, but differently than you did when you were in stage 3. It may redefine your understanding of doctrines you still embrace, it may confirm what you already believed or it may cause you to reject what you thought doctrine was. But it does not always require everyone to reject doctrines. Fowlers stages are a development theory to describe social trends observed with individuals in his studies. It is not a roadmap for finding answers. Therefore, you won’t find scriptures or the Church teaching people about it. I do not think Stage 5 is “better than” stage 3. We do not all have to find it.
DA and I are good examples of how stage theory can produce different results – that, as he said, it’s not the specific belief details that are the key to stage designation but rather the bigger picture that emerges as beliefs are evaluated in light of all available information. Speaking very loosely, Stage 3 is about exclusivity and certainty; Stage 4 is about shattered certainty, angst and direction of change (embracing uncertainty and the need for individual undertanding or returning to some form of exclusivity and certainty – in the case of Mormonism, for example, returning to absolute, comprehensive belief or changing to absolute, comprehensive rejection OR moving into an individual understanding that is somewhere in the middle); Stage 5 is about embracing individual understanding while respecting others’ undertandings (with exceptions that prove the rule).
The most popular leaders can be any of these stages, depending on whom they are leading.
Shawn, immediately off the top of my head, without having to think about it at all, I would point to David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, Joseph B. Wirthlin, Deiter F. Uchtdorf – and more than a few others.
Nephite wrote:wayfarer wrote:Shawn, please read 3 Ne 11:31-40. I will venture to say that much of what you think is core LDS doctrine is not the Lord’s doctrine.
I definitely remember our conversations about doctrine.🙂 I believe there is more to it, though. There are important teachings and practices that are not specifically part of the “Doctrine of Christ.”
yes indeed. its called “church doctrine” — the commandments of men taught for doctrine. nowhere is the additional stuff called the “doctrine of christ”, because the Doctrine of christ keeps to the basics and has never changed.Old-Timer wrote:…, immediately off the top of my head, without having to think about it at all, I would point to David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, Joseph B. Wirthlin, Deiter F. Uchtdorf – and more than a few others.
I have very little hope left for the church…but the little i have left is because of folks like these mentioned….as well as my DAMU contacts like Brian, Ray, Wayfarer, M&G, Stealth Bishop, Southern Bishop, Bishop Reel, Epig, Oliver, etc etc.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
wayfarer wrote:Nephite wrote:wayfarer wrote:Shawn, please read 3 Ne 11:31-40. I will venture to say that much of what you think is core LDS doctrine is not the Lord’s doctrine.
Mature, authentic faith and pure Mormonism isn’t for everyone. When the hosts of israel could not accept a higher law, the Lord gave them what they wanted: a lesser law full of outward observances. Since the death of Joseph Smith, maybe even before then, LDS have not received further light and knowledge in direct revelation, but rather, institutionalized, correlated speculations and Talmudic church policy and rules.
You can choose to enjoy the mere husk of faith in sticking to and defending these policies and commandments of men taught as doctrine, but as for me, I prefer the kernel.
I definitely remember our conversations about doctrine.🙂 I believe there is more to it, though. There are important teachings and practices that are not specifically part of the “Doctrine of Christ.”
yes indeed. its called “church doctrine” — the commandments of men taught for doctrine. nowhere is the additional stuff called the “doctrine of christ”, because the Doctrine of christ keeps to the basics and has never changed.
Right after He defines His doctrine in 3 Nephi 11, Jesus preaches the Sermon on the Mount: “…blessed are the poor in spirit who come unto me…whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment…whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart…love your enemies…do alms unto the poor…all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them… Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven,” etc.In Chapter 18, Jesus administers the sacrament and says “And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you. And I give unto you a commandment that ye shall do these things. And if ye shall always do these things blessed are ye, for ye are built upon my rock. But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock…”
It says in 3 Nephi 23: 14 that “when Jesus had expounded all the scriptures in one, which they had written, he commanded them that they should teach the things which he had expounded unto them.”
So Jesus taught many more things and
commandedthat those things be taught. They are not the commandments of men. They are the teachings and commandments of Christ. I honestly don’t understand why He separates what the “doctrine of Christ” is. Your way is not superior and you don’t know that those who are “defending these policies and commandments of men [at least some of which are the teachings and commandments of Christ] taught as doctrine” can “enjoy the mere husk of faith” while you have the “kernel.”
When wayfarer mentioned “institutionalized, correlated speculations and Talmudic church policy and rules”, I immediately thought of things like wearing a white shirt, no uncovered shoulders, no R-rated movies, no use of non-KJV bibles, no multiple piercings/tattoos, and the like. I agree that Christ taught more than the core doctrines of faith, repentance, baptism, holy ghost, and endure to the end. His extended teachings in 3 Ne are some of the most beautiful and pure teachings in our standard works. However, I find it frustrating when members assign salvific power to things like the teachings of men above. I find real clarity when I test church teachings against the Doctrine of Christ. The philosophies and policies of men get strained out, and I feel like I am left with truly salvific principles upon which to base my life. Back when I was mostly in Stage 3, it was very important to me to obey the teachings and policies of my priesthood leaders, whether I agreed with them or not. I felt that my access to God was threatened if I were to be disobedient to policy. After the beginnings of my faith transition, I began to realize that my leaders were imperfect men, just like me, and could make mistakes in their teaching. I realized that I knew more about my personal situation than they did, and began to have the courage to risk finding my own personalized truth. It seems that Stages 4, 5, and 6 are about a more individualized approach to faith, which can often offend the norms of the Stage 3 community. I am very happy for folks who can stay in Stage 3 throughout their life–they have the comfort of certainty to sustain them. God obviously chose a different path for me, and I have to follow that path if I want to fully realize my faith potential. I realize that this could sound like rationalization for disobedience and sin to Stage 3 folks. I don’t know what to say about that, other than I now have to be the arbiter of my own spiritual health, and I can no longer rely on authorities to tell me when I have sinned, what I have to do to repent, and when I have been forgiven. Heck, I think even the concept of sin changes as a person moves into Stage 5.
It’s interesting that wayfarer brings up the incident at Sinai. In Exodus 20, the children of Israel are invited into the holy mount, but they are too afraid to go, and demand to have a intermediary. In my mind, eventually we all have to go up Sinai and face God ourselves, with no Moses to intervene. IMO, I don’t think you can stay in Stage 3
andgo up the mountain. Nephite wrote:Your way is not superior and you don’t know that those who are “defending these policies and commandments of men [at least some of which are the teachings and commandments of Christ] taught as doctrine” can “enjoy the mere husk of faith” while you have the “kernel.”
shawn, your cup is too full. let me know when you’ve emptied it, then maybe we can talk.wayfarer wrote:Nephite wrote:Your way is not superior and you don’t know that those who are “defending these policies and commandments of men [at least some of which are the teachings and commandments of Christ] taught as doctrine” can “enjoy the mere husk of faith” while you have the “kernel.”
shawn, your cup is too full. let me know when you’ve emptied it, then maybe we can talk.Faith crisis sucks, for all of us.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:wayfarer wrote:Nephite wrote:Your way is not superior and you don’t know that those who are “defending these policies and commandments of men [at least some of which are the teachings and commandments of Christ] taught as doctrine” can “enjoy the mere husk of faith” while you have the “kernel.”
shawn, your cup is too full. let me know when you’ve emptied it, then maybe we can talk.
Faith crisis sucks, for all of us.
indeed. but that is the entire purpose of this life. we cannot grow until we embrace the void and comethroughthe trial of faith. i love shawn — he is stuck in neutral, holding on to his penchant to defend the faith, so he cannot progress. the trial of faith is a refining process, requiring us to set aside things that are no longer part of the substance of faith.
How Firm A Foundation, verse 5 wrote:When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie,
My grace, all sufficient, shall be thy supply.
The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design
Thy dross to consume, thy dross to consume,
Thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine.
The following is a repost from another thread that I feel also belongs in this thread: On Own Now wrote:– I’m not totally bought into the “stages of faith”. I find much that is accurate there, but it’s an awfully broad brush, and I find a bit of dissonance in the idea of labeling where each of us finds ourselves in the transition. It also leads to a false sense that progression from the stages is both akin to maturity or evolved state, as well as an inevitability. So, it’s definitely interesting, and I can see my vague image reflected in it, but it’s hardly a roadmap. There are many people who exhibit aspects of several of the stages at once… others who move in the reverse direction, others who skip stages in their entirety, others who never move from one stage to another once they reach adulthood.
I completely agree with you “On Own Now.” I remember talking to a friend about the stages of faith and had to keep pointing out that the higher stages were not necessarily superior to lower stages. She suggested that the stages be named something less linear – like colors – to avoid this misconception. I also recognize that the draw backs to dividing and labeling people (and ourselves) are present here as well. People are complex and fluid – we cannot act as though they were round or square pegs to be classified. For me the major advantage of this type of model is the alternate framing of the concepts of Faith, Doubt, Trust, Pride, Humility, and Sin that we are so familiar with.
In my own experience, I went through an assumptive world collapse. I did not know it at the time. I just knew that everything was falling apart and that I was flailing wildly and not finding anything solid to hold onto. Was this what it might be like to sink into madness? My subconscious mind was reacting in a fairly predictable and documented way to an extreme traumatic event, but I didn’t know it. When I finally did find out about the concept of an assumptive world collapse (similar to moving from stage 3 to stage 4 but also involving the loss or modification of such concepts as the Just World Hypothesis), it was such a relief to me. I was not in uncharted territory, nor was I falling under satanic influences – I was having a
normal, human, and involuntaryresponse. That for me is the major advantage of Fowler’s stages – that a faith crisis may be normal, human, and involuntary. However, I do not expect these concepts/models to be embraced in the church. Elder Boyd K. Packer is oft quoted in saying:
Quote:“True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1986, 20; or Ensign, Nov. 1986, 17).
I had always understood this to mean that the doctrines of the gospel offer an improved view (perhaps even a perfect view) on the human condition. I no longer believe this to be the case. Sometimes other models allow me to gain understand of myself in ways that do not involve sacrificing my sense of self worth (as some interpretations of the gospel might have me do).
Nice comments, Roy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.