- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think it gives all it can. I am okay with that, especially given the multiple statements about worshipping according to my own conscience, being an agent unto myself, etc. I would like more, but I also don’t want more. I recognize and appreciate that irony.
nibbler wrote:
Holding the PH in the church certainly has the power to authorize someone to perform functions that are recognized by the church.Outside of that context I see the PH as being similar to Dumbo’s feather.
I had to look up what Dumbo’s feather actually means. It’s a symbol of the belief that Dumbo had that he could do magical things. So Nibbler is saying the priesthood is kind of like an emblem that makes us believe we can do miracles, although its’ actual efficacy is a lot like a feather in Dumbo’s Trunk. It really doesn’t contribute to his flying.
SilentDawning wrote:
It’s a symbol of the belief that Dumbo had that he could do magical things
In the story, Dumbo needed something outside of himself that could boost his confidence. A belief in the priesthood and also having a divine mandate has led to some amazing accomplishments and also some terrible disasters. There was a time where our church was pretty extreme in demands and belief levels and I believe that that lent itself to a certain amount of abuse, blind faith, and unrighteous dominion. I am happy to observe that the church seems to becoming steadily less extreme.DarkJedi wrote:
Watcher wrote:
You make an excellent point and I agree that many things that are taught “at church” are neither true nor revealed doctrine of the restored church.
As you say there are many things I chalk up to “taught by the church” (I somewhat frequently use the phrase “church teaching” here) which are not actually doctrine. The unfortunate thing is that many members believe and perpetrate such things as doctrine. Many true believers believe everything the prophet says is doctrine (and I have heard it taught that the Ensign, now Liahona, is scripture). My own belief is that most of what the modern prophets have said is their own opinion and/or their own understanding and not automatically doctrine. I believe there is very little doctrine and the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ is much, much simpler than church teachings make it out to be.
FWIW, I believe evolution to be the most plausible explanation for how God created life. I believe God is the Creator, and I mostly believe that because I don’t believe the creation could have happened randomly. I believe God did it, but I don’t know how God did – the Big Bang and evolution are both plausible to me.
I have thought about your post. I would like to respond with my opinion. In general, I do not think doctrine or what a person believes or thinks is all that important except in how such thinking effects behaviors and how others are treated. In essence, how many angles can dance on the head of a pin is irrelevant unless it becomes an excuse to ridicule or demeane others. I believe that even the “doctrine” of baptism is somewhat not important except it inspires a believer to ridicule or demeane those that are not baptized. I think I should explain baptism a little better because baptism is given as an ordinance and a covenant to assist an individual in their odyssey in life not as a means or excuse to ridicule or demeane others.
I believe you are correct in wanting to move away from the ideas of doctrine. There is very little indication in scripture, beyond how doctrine us utilized, that suggests doctrine as a critical issue. I have come to this conclusion because of agency and my belief that agency is the singular issue that divided the advanced and intelligent society of heaven – the singular issue that divides the “righteous” and what and who they are from the “wicked” and what and who they are. And yet in so thinking I tend to ridicule and demeane those that I think spoil agency. In part I try to cover such thinking with logic and thinking that I do not comprehend an individual that would spoil their own agency – I really do not believe that anyone would do such a thing – and so I think that I will never encounter such a being. There is “doctrine” that such beings do exist and it seems obvious that because evil is a possible that someone would knowingly embrace it. I just do not find any logic to it – thus when someone does evil the only logical conclusion I can understand is that they did not know what they are doing and if they did they would choose differently.
As a side note. I believe that evolution is a principle of life. I do not believe evolution is impossible without intelligent intervention. I believe I understand how the notion was created that evolution disproves there is a G-d but I believe that evolution proves both the possibility and probability there is a G-d. That in essence, what many believe is G-d is disproved by evolution. As for the Big Bang theory – I have believed from my own investigations that much is missing from the Big Bang theory but I have never encountered or thought of a better possibility. I am “evolving” towards the possibility; that there is a society of innumerable G-ds constantly involved in various kinds, types and levels of creations and that our Father in Heaven is but one, that is directly involved with us and our evolution of which this mortal experience is but a very small though important part.
SilentDawning wrote:
Watcher wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:Then if there is so much we don’t know, even in spiritual things, how can we give credence to a church that claims to have all truth?
Pearl of Great Price – Articles of Faith – article of faith #9
Quote:We believe all that God has arevealed, all that He does now reveal, and
we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. Where is the claim that “The Church” has all truth? I have never heard such a claim – ever?????
Good point. I guess that’s something that’s crept into my belief system without justification.
Do you think the Church gives us ENOUGH truth given the requirements it makes on us?
I believe the best answer I have to your question is that it is not so important what we are given in terms of what is true as it is that we seek to discover and gain the truth by whatever means we have or can employ.
Watcher wrote:
In general, I do not think doctrine or what a person believes or thinks is all that important except in how such thinking effects behaviors and how others are treated. In essence, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is irrelevant unless it becomes an excuse to ridicule or demean others.
The “heart of the matter” in terms of doctrine is what meaning is the individual making from it in connecting with others.
– In your example, the precise number of pin-dancing angels is a) not countable, and b) less valuable then the knowledge that angels can or are dancing on mortal pins or not.
– But if the pin-dancing angels are what an individual is using as a connection point to God, then it might matter – for them. In terms of how they see themselves and how they see others.
– The only universal truth that can be pulled from this is that it is safe to assume that some “dry, unimportant point of information” is driving someone somewhere to irrational behavior and agitation.
Watcher wrote:
I believe that even the “doctrine” of baptism is somewhat not important except it inspires a believer to ridicule or demean those that are not baptized. I think I should explain baptism a little better because baptism is given as an ordinance and a covenant to assist an individual in their odyssey in life not as a means or excuse to ridicule or demean others.
I think that the “Doctrine of Baptism” becomes important because of some common acts/themes it symbolizes.
– Humans look at “washing away” impurifications (running around in the rain, etc.) as an ignition point for profound change away from old habits of thinking and behaving.
– In that sense, being baptized is a starting over point with ourselves and with God (we are finally clean enough to be with God).
– It also functions as a “community entry point” (names on records and privilege opener and all that).
– It’s also a “heathen remover” status point in a sense. Some churches allow baptisms from other denominations and branches (but Christian churches do not accept LDS baptisms – probably because our church doesn’t accept theirs either) in an “Us vs Them” reality.
Watcher wrote:
I believe you are correct in wanting to move away from the ideas of doctrine. There is very little indication in scripture, beyond how doctrine us utilized, that suggests doctrine as a critical issue.
It’s always nice to tell “doctrine vs policy vs preference vs individual meaning vs everything else”.
Assuming that you could actual divine “doctrine” (which is a big “If” in my mind) – it’s more about what people think is the best course of action to implement the details surrounding that doctrine and how to advise on competing “doctrines”. Example: “Taking the Sacrament is Important” is a doctrine… so during COVID times, the church leadership did not authorize families without priesthood holders to set it up for themselves or set up a sustainable way for those individuals to experience it (aside from asking priesthood holders to go the extra mile to visit people and asking for patience as the world returned to normal) because “In Person Priesthood Ministration” as an authority tool trumped the doctrine of “Sacrament meeting taking”.
Watcher wrote:
I have come to this conclusion because of agency and my belief that agency is the singular issue that divided the advanced and intelligent society of heaven – the singular issue that divides the “righteous” and what and who they are from the “wicked” and what and who they are.
Can you please elaborate a little more on how “Agency is the singular issue dividing the Advanced/Intelligent people in Heaven into the “Righteous” and “Unrighteous” categories? I know the standard party line on how it separated the 2 camps, but the narrative also includes that those unrighteous people were advanced and smart (otherwise we wouldn’t get so many “don’t be deceived by Satan” warnings).
Watcher wrote:
And yet in so thinking I tend to ridicule and demean those that I think spoil agency. In part I try to cover such thinking with logic and thinking that I do not comprehend an individual that would spoil their own agency – I really do not believe that anyone would do such a thing – and so I think that I will never encounter such a being. There is “doctrine” that such beings do exist and it seems obvious that because evil is a possible that someone would knowingly embrace it. I just do not find any logic to it – thus when someone does evil the only logical conclusion I can understand is that they did not know what they are doing and if they did they would choose differently.
Define “Evil”?
Making destructive choices generally comes from an individual being underequipped to handle whatever it is they are handling – and not getting the level of support they need to avoid making destructive choices in the first place and wanting to tear someone else down.
There are 2 general lenses used to frame human behavior.
A) “If they knew better/had better supports/had what they needed” – they wouldn’t threaten other people.
“The individual is the individual” and is innately a threat to other people.Group A focuses on social justice and trying to get everyone the resources/supports they need in an equal-ish playing field. This can be costly and wasteful pretty quickly – mostly because of the admin work to figure out the resources needed, the resources available, and related logistics. This can also end up with a person getting resources they don’t need because of some administration decisions.
Group B focuses on containing/controlling the individual and running ongoing risk assessments on the individual. Sometimes these behaviors do protect the community from the individual. Most of the time, the soul of the individual lives up to the expectations of being a threat imposed on them (because the individual was a threat at one point).
NOTE: Most of this comes from child development. Since I am trying to raise good neuro-diverse humans and break cycles of trauma – it’s something I have given a lot of thought about.
Several years ago we had a discussion about doctrine vs. culture/tradition. Linked here in case you want to review (my answers have probably changed to some of them): https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?p=75901#p75901 ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?p=75901#p75901 PS: There’s also some reference to wearing crosses, relevant to another current thread.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.