- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Thanks for clarifying Ray; that post helped me understand better where you are coming from. I also am in favor of being more honest with ourselves concerning the role interpretation plays in what is “doctrine” and “orthodox”. I am also in support of broadening that definition, as I said. Even so, clear limits remain. I consider myself temple worthy, but I am not orthodox, not even totally orthoprax. In your view, can we go against those doctrines that are clear in the church and be orthodox by your definition? Disbelieve God has a body, for example?
“Orthodoxy” is important to discuss, but that wasn’t even what I meant to talk about primarily with my post. “dispensationalist authority” just didn’t fit.
Quote:“dispensationalist authority” just didn’t fit.
Yeah, I agree with that totally – and wrote a comment about it in a post here sometime in the past.
It’s probably a good thing my brain is too small and somewhat dried out from prolonged alcohol use, or I might have realize that I have been offended in this post. I don’t think it was intended though. As it is let me just say:
I certainly have many of my fathers undesirable traits, such as stubbornness, lack of tact, @ssholism and a general “know it all” attitude. However, I can assure you that racism is not one of them. If so, my Navajo wife of 18 years and my three “half-breed” kids are in for a shocker.
Also – what am I afraid of? Perhaps this should be a separate thread. But just for short order— I’m afraid of what most StayLDSers and NOMs are afraid of — I want to live my life to my own conscience and beliefs,
ANDremain a part of my family and tribe. So there you have it – I’m afraid of getting my butt kicked out of the tribe, and burning any remaining bridges I have left with my family.How is that therapist Cnsl1
cwald, instead of @ssholism, you might consider @ssholiness. It’s one of my favorite words. 😈 Actually, as I think about it, @ssholism is a really good term for general situations, while @ssholiness works better for religious arrogance and related pious jerkiness.
So, thanks for adding to my heterodox vocabulary!
😆 I did not for a second mean to imply cwald is anything close to racist, rather that the neurochemistry (combined with many learning patterns) that leads one to that type of thinking might also lead one to other less-adaptive behaviors, and that by looking deeper into the problem of one’s parents, one might get ideas how similar roots might affect current problems, which may present altogether differently and less maladaptively. Apple falling from the tree was a bad analogy… I didn’t mean the behavioral tree but the genetic tree. Still, it was off-topic. I need to remember to hold off commenting when I’m really tired. I agree that many on here probably fear getting our butts kicked out of the tribe–be it church tribe and/or family tribe. I also think that as this fear subsides, our happiness level or especially our comfort level rises. Accepting historical evidence that isn’t what we were taught and still accepting orthodox mormonism is probably impossible from the categorical world view. But hopefully we’re helping to change that world view, which we know can be quite limiting. One of the great things about this message board (for me) was to find out I wasn’t alone in my thinking–LOTS of other people felt almost just like I did and many were okay with it… they’d found a way to live happy in this place. I certainly have less fear now after reading and learning more… many things I learned in the stayLDS and NOM sites. One of the cool things happening in our church recently is that the definition of “orthodox” really seems to be softening or changing. I agree with Ray that a “more charitable way to view orthodoxy” seems to be occuring. Then again, maybe we’re seeing what we WANT to see. Who knows?
I try to support this by being myself in my callings and assignments from the church. When asked to talk, I tell people how I feel (well, maybe not everything… not yet). When asked to do some things, I sometimes say no if it doesn’t fit with what seems right and good to me, or if it takes away from spiritual growth or from my family. I’ve always said what I thought, but I used to still toe the line for the most part. Now I’m more open with how I feel. Surprisingly, I have found that my tribe seems okay with that, no one is telling me to change my ways, and many of my tribe have expressed to me that they feel exactly the same way (or somewhat the same way). I’m beginning to think half of the active membership of any given ward are often confused Mormons that are stuck somewhere between what they think they are supposed to do and what they feel. Stuck between orthodoxy and spirituality maybe. I don’t know.
Maybe I can get a better grasp on the idea of “the orthodoxy of one” with an example, and walk through that line of thinking. First, I think a working definition of “orthodoxy” would be:
Quote:1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.
2. Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional.
The traditional belief of the story of the Flood and Noah could be summarized as:
– The Lord saw the earth had all wicked people, except Noah and his family.
– The Earth needed to be baptized
– Noah warns the people to repent.
– Noah gathers all animals on the face of the earth two by two as instructed by the Lord, and fills the Ark.
– The rains come and the entire earth is flooded, save Noah and his followers.
– The rains stop and the ark finds dry land, and the animals are let out to repopulate the earth.
If these points are generally believed and taught by the church, so that the majority of members accept these as historical facts, then one would be orthodox to accept these teachings.
If I believe the story is symbolic, never actually happened, and the entire earth was not flooded…can I say that I’m orthodox in my belief because I define orthodoxy as believing the symbolic meaning, not the literal meaning…even if the majority of members of the church teach it as so?
Heber13 wrote:Maybe I can get a better grasp on the idea of “the orthodoxy of one” with an example, and walk through that line of thinking.
First, I think a working definition of “orthodoxy” would be:
Quote:1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.
2. Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional.
The traditional belief of the story of the Flood and Noah could be summarized as:
– The Lord saw the earth had all wicked people, except Noah and his family.
– The Earth needed to be baptized
– Noah warns the people to repent.
– Noah gathers all animals on the face of the earth two by two as instructed by the Lord, and fills the Ark.
– The rains come and the entire earth is flooded, save Noah and his followers.
– The rains stop and the ark finds dry land, and the animals are let out to repopulate the earth.
If these points are generally believed and taught by the church, so that the majority of members accept these as historical facts, then one would be orthodox to accept these teachings.
If I believe the story is symbolic, never actually happened, and the entire earth was not flooded…can I say that I’m orthodox in my belief because I define orthodoxy as believing the symbolic meaning, not the literal meaning…even if the majority of members of the church teach it as so?
IMO – no chance. I think folks on this board are making their personal opinions fit the definition rather than applying the proper word to fit their stance. It’s almost like we are trying to redefine what the word orthodox means. That is just my opinion. And I think this Noah story is a good example because 85% of the LDS members have been taught and do believe exactly like you described.
Thanks for keeping us honest, cwald. I agree. As I said earlier, rather than “orthodox” I meant “dispensationalist authority”, but orthodoxy as expressed in literal understandings of scripture also comes up. I will raise the ante a bit though. It is not just that these ideas are accepted by most Mormons…. the other scriptures of our canon *require* us to believe these literal understandings to be orthodox. Doctrine & Covenants 107 talks about all sorts of Biblical figures getting the priesthood… and how can we understand Adam and Eve as allegorical when they are right there, waving to us from D&C 138:38-39?
And so it goes. I actually want to dedicate my scripture study to identifying all of the literal biblical figures and events presupposed by the other LDS scripture. As one more example, D&C 7 completely falls apart historically (the origin of the “immortal missionary John the Beloved” idea), because the idea of an immortal Beloved Disciple is disproved in the very passage it originates! Not to mention that “John the Beloved” is a problem…
So nope, can’t do it. It doesn’t mean there aren’t satisfying and even superior ways to interact with the scriptures and the Church, but we can’t call ourselves orthodox.
But admit it; all of us feel a little special being in the heterodox club anyway.
The words “Adam” and “Eve” mean “man” and “woman” in Hebrew I believe. (Andrew just means a “man” too I think) Enoch wrote:But admit it; all of us feel a little special being in the heterodox club anyway.
Yes. This is something that I know about myself and my personality. I find myself taking similar stances elsewhere throughout my life too, outside of religion. While I personally enjoy being a bit of a contrarian, and have always been fascinated by things on the fringes; I also realize that I need an “orthodox” majority as a background to be the way I am. I need them, on some level.
Brian Johnston wrote:Enoch wrote:But admit it; all of us feel a little special being in the heterodox club anyway.
Yes. This is something that I know about myself and my personality. I find myself taking similar stances elsewhere throughout my life too, outside of religion. While I personally enjoy being a bit of a contrarian, and have always been fascinated by things on the fringes; I also realize that I need an “orthodox” majority as a background to be the way I am. I need them, on some level.
Absolutely. Politics, work, school, family, religion, marriage, parenting etc etc. I have very little room for orthodoxy in any aspect of my life.
Andrew — you bring up a good point about the D&C scriptures. It gave me shivers just reading your last post — and thinking of the implications.
It is interesting to me how orthodoxy can stray from the printed canon. For example the word of wisdom was given and still reads “not by commandment or constraint” but it is clearly understood in the modern church to be a commandment. Why would the scripture not be changed to reflect the current orthodoxy? I’m sure there are other cases where the scriptures say one thing but the popular belief is something else. When orthodoxy is the prominent or popular belief it will drift with the common understanding.
While being in the spirit of redefining “orthodox” to match my personal beliefs, I prefer to let the term rest altogether. I will say “non-traditional”, but ultimately orthodoxy is not a big concern of mine. I like to focus on the old Mormon ideal of accepting truth “come from whence it may.” As a child I was told countless times “don’t follow the crowd — do what you know is right.” While I understand the argument that I am still “following” the LDS crowd to some extent, I feel like I am embracing truth to a greater degree than simply going with the flow …with humility of course. I understand the limits of my own humanity.
Orson I think you’re confusing two issues here – conservatism and fundamentalism. A conservative take on the WoW would be “follow the (recent) prophet” and a fundamentalist one would be “stick to the words”. At least that’s how I understand it. SamBee, “Adam” does mean “human”; in fact, in the creation narratives it is a bit tricky to know when the word means human and when it means Adam. “Eve” has the same root as “life” (Her name in Hebrew is “Chawa” or “Chava” and life is “Chi”, pronounced “Khai”) SamBee, sorry if I confused the two. What I was really trying to say – using your words – is sometimes I’m surprised that conservatives are not more fundamentalist. Or at least more anchored in their orthodoxy to something less susceptible to drift. On the one hand I love the principle of continuing revelation – and the idea that what we think we know today may not equal what we think we know tomorrow. But I also associate conservatism with being more “grounded” and prone to certainty — which in my mind would look for a solid anchor — one that wouldn’t allow for the drift of group consensus orthodoxy. I know that in the real world churches that try to hold to the “unchanging” anchor eventually get into trouble for it, it’s just an interesting irony for me. It’s one of those puzzles that I think we can learn a lot from.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.