- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
it’s nothing more than a laundry list of stuff that bugs him, and he seemed to trying to use his authority in order to force people
Classic BKP. Can you think of any talk he has done that doesn’t fit this description? I’m not sure I can.
But in fairness, I have a good friend who was a bishop and met BKP and Oaks who were visiting their region. Oaks made a comment about how some things “should” be done, and BKP corrected him and cautioned him to be careful of giving too much instruction to members because often this will create unintended compliance. All I can say to that is “What the . . .???” Physician, heal thyself.
i have the distinct impression that BKP has seen it as his responsibility to chair the LDS Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). from wikipedia: Quote:The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) (Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei), previously known as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Mormon and Universal Inquisition (wherefrom arose the names Mormon Inquisition or Holy Inquisition popularly used in reference to the 20th century tribunals against apostasy and heresy), and after 1994 called the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, is the oldest of the nine congregations of the LDS Curia. Among the most active of the congregations, it oversees LDS Church doctrine.
He’s the LDS equivalent of Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger. i just can’t until he becomes Benedict…
I also think that these things become an issue when people start thinking that ‘by not doing this thing, I am committing a sin’ – and if you see someone else not doing this thing why you are, there is the temptation to judge. So by not wearing a white shirt on Sunday I am a sinner
It’s a real slippery slope to becoming a miserable micro-manager
Most people hate ambiguity. A procedure is right or its wrong. A person is good or he’s bad. An action is sinful or holy. I am constantly confronted with this kind of thinking both in and out of the Church. I think it is human nature to seek for absolutes as they provide reliable structure for our lives. We don’t WANT to think about every action we take and consider and meditate as to whether it’s the right one. We just want to do it and get it overwith. No wonder common practices become doctrines. I had a discussion the other night with my DW who was insisting that one of my children set the table correctly. Afterwards (not in front of the kids!) I mentioned that I didn’t think it was a big deal. She immediately defended her actions by stating why it was important (helps kids learn order, helps them learn to count, etc.). I pointed out that our house is usually a mess anyway and that I didn’t think that setting the table was going to counteract the general untidiness of our children. Well, she settled down after that but her initial attitude was one I see all the time in the Church. A kind of panic sets in when what is SUPPOSED to happen DOESN’T happen. Here’s a more relevant example. In our ward, we always have either a musical number or a rest hymn before that last speaker. ALWAYS! Well, one Sunday the ward music chairman had arranged for neither. During the sacrament, it suddenly dawned on the bishopric that there would be no musical number or rest hymn. From my seat in the congregation, I notice a flurry of quiet conversing on the stand. They talked for about five minutes and then the counselor walks down and speaks quietly to the ward music chairman (who I see shake her head). Then he walks over to the organist (who nods her head) and then he walks over to my wife (who was the chorister at the time) and I hear him ask her to lead a rest hymn. The bishop picks one, announces it, and my wife walks up to lead. The day is saved! The whole time I’m just shaking my head and wishing I could say to the bishop “Just skip the hymn! It’s okay! It’s really okay!” Now I don’t believe the bishopric thought they were violating some commandment but a habit had become “doctrinelike” to the point that they were worried about it. And like all “doctrine” (regardless of its origin) these are the kinds of actions that provide a securing sense of steadiness we are often loathe to abandon. P.S. Based on some of the prior messages, I read President Packer’s talk “The Unwritten Order of Things.” Like other commenters, I agreed with his basic point but didn’t particularly agree with his examples though most seemed fairly innocuous. But his diatribe about funerals! Where did THAT come from?
Gerald wrote:I pointed out that our house is usually a mess anyway …
Wow. You really have a way with women.😆 Quote:The whole time I’m just shaking my head and wishing I could say to the bishop “Just skip the hymn! It’s okay! It’s really okay!” Now I don’t believe the bishopric thought they were violating some commandment but a habit had become “doctrinelike” to the point that they were worried about it.
That’s a great example. Another case in point is a local practice (I think) of having a ‘spiritual thought’ as part of the agenda for every single meeting. Can’t proceed without one. I’m not sure where or when it got started or if it is, in fact, a church-wide thing, or just something that got started here locally. Does anyone else do this? The fact that I don’t know the answer to that attests to the inherent power of these kinds of things.
Quote:I read President Packer’s talk … his examples … seemed fairly innocuous.
I think I disagree there. Yes, some of the examples he uses are silly and even ridiculous, but he sets a precedent that others seem only too happy to follow.
Heber13 wrote:cwald wrote:Well hell, the obvious one is the WoW —- but don’t get me started.
😡
😆 Ya…OK, that’s the obvious one, and yes, that’s a whole other thread. So put that one aside.
What else is doctrine that started as a common practice?
I’m having a tough time thinking of things.
Maybe:
1) Segregating blacks may have started as a common/cultural/societal practice based on teachings of the “mark of Cain” (which Bushman noted was a teaching by some groups in the 1800s, if I remember right) that became a doctrine of withholding the priesthood and taught in the church, but later was researched and not really substantiated, and finally a prophet received revelation to correct the practice and doctrine.
2) Marriage as a common practice became celestial marriage doctrine required for exaltation (first become plural marriage doctrine, then changed to temple marriage).
Others?
Well, I think there are many many of these things, most are minor, but perhaps the most “controversial” one, even more controversial than blacks and the priesthood, would probably be
women and the priesthood. It just seems so obvious – to me – that our entire view of priesthood comes directly from a society that was steeped in the patriarchal order for thousands of years – and it has nothing to do with god or commandments at all. Just the way things were at the time of the restoration, and we are having such a hard time seeing it that way, so we make stuff upto explain it all. Just like we do with covering up the sacrament table with a white sheet. cwald wrote:Well, I think there are many many of these things, most are minor, but perhaps the most “controversial” one, even more controversial than blacks and the priesthood, would probably be women and the priesthood. It just seems so obvious – to me – that our entire view of priesthood comes directly from a society that was steeped in the patriarchal order for thousands of years – and it has nothing to do with god or commandments at all. Just the way things were at the time of the restoration, and we are having such a hard time seeing it that way, so we make stuff up to explain it all.
I was convinced that this was an eternal principle that was not open to change but then GBH told Larry King that a revelation could change everything, usher out the old conventional theories, and make the priesthood available to all regardless of gender. Just like that!
Quote:Another case in point is a local practice (I think) of having a ‘spiritual thought’ as part of the agenda for every single meeting. Can’t proceed without one. I’m not sure where or when it got started or if it is, in fact, a church-wide thing, or just something that got started here locally. Does anyone else do this? The fact that I don’t know the answer to that attests to the inherent power of these kinds of things.
It’s not church-wide because I’ve never come across it and I’ve lived in 10 different wards in my adult life (all in the Mormon belt).
Heber13 wrote:What’s another example of a doctrine that started as common practice?
An interesting one I read about a week or so ago was Deacons passing the sacrament. If you read D&C 20, you’ll see that Elders are supposed to administer the sacrament, and Priests are supposed to fill in and administer the sacrament only when an Elder is not present.
Near the beginning of the 20th century, some church leaders started allowing Deacons to participate in passing the sacrament, justifying it by saying that passing was not administering. By that logic, is there any reason why young women shouldn’t be allowed to pass the sacrament?
That’s a great example. Quote:By that logic, is there any reason why young women shouldn’t be allowed to pass the sacrament?
Everyone already passes the sacrament – men, women and children, as it goes down each row and back.
I mean that sincerely, not flippantly. Everyone already “passes” it in every way that counts – in every way that the Deacons do.
The deacon (or whoever is passing it) merely is the person who facilitates the passing – and it could be done by two Deacons even in a large ward, technically, by passing it to the first person and observing as one row passes it backward or forward to the next row. There’s no correct number of times a Deacon has to touch the trays to make it legitimate – and, in fact, those who bless it also could pass it, in exactly the manner I just described.
The Priests (and the Bishop, as the President of the Priests Quorum) really are the ones “administering” (supervising and watching over) it now, but everyone passes it.
Gerald wrote:Quote:Another case in point is a local practice (I think) of having a ‘spiritual thought’ as part of the agenda for every single meeting. Can’t proceed without one. I’m not sure where or when it got started or if it is, in fact, a church-wide thing, or just something that got started here locally. Does anyone else do this? The fact that I don’t know the answer to that attests to the inherent power of these kinds of things.
It’s not church-wide because I’ve never come across it and I’ve lived in 10 different wards in my adult life (all in the Mormon belt).
Well, thanks for clearing that up. Just another local tradition run amok.
I turned that one on its head and quoted from “Conversations with God” the movie. Our Bishop at the time looked at me like I was teaching heresy because it wasn’t from a Church publication. I think I’ll have to do that again some time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.