- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I joined this forum specifically to ask a question. I have had a hard time pinning the question down, so if I am unclear, please ask for clarification. It is an issue that many, many posts here and elsewhere touch upon. The question is: How far can you reinterpret LDS beliefs before you can no longer be considered LDS?Can you ever be outside the boundaries of the LDS church except by your own definition? (other than through resignation or church disciplinary action) Are there minimum belief requirements?
Temple recommend questions: many active lds folk, especially new members and inactives, do not comply with TR standards, yet are still considered full members. Also, the TR questions can be reframed themselves, so is it a flexible standard?
Articles of Faith: the AofF are not an exhaustive summary of the doctrines, but are they a minimum? If you can believe each of these as written are you then LDS? Can these be reframed as well, or have some measure of flexibility?
Minimum beliefs: What would those be? Joseph Smith, first vision, hierarchy of prophet and apostles
Core vs obscure beliefs: Are there certain basics you must believe to be LDS while disregarding the obscure, questionable, or controversial stuff, the stuff we “don’t teach any more” like polygamy, polygamy in heaven, literal flood as baptism of the earth, blacks as less valiant in pre-existence, etc.
Cultural mormon: if you have a record and live according to the culture, or feel a part of the culture, can you still consider yourself lds in spite of doubts or total disbelief?
Social mormon: if you just like the community and participate actively in it, without belief, is that enough to still be identified as lds?
Baptism and records: if you have these does that make you a member no matter what your beliefs?
How far can doctrines be revised before they lose their identification as a doctrine?
First Vision: the CoC teaches that JS had “an experience with the divine” as a core belief. Is that sufficient or too vague? i.e. he had some sort of experience that led him to create a religious movement, or church.
Temple worship: Disregard its Masonic roots or similarities, its original polygamous components. Reframe it as a creative or participative way of learning sacred truths rather than the literalness.
Scriptures: to be understood as literal or merely morality tales.
Prayer: actually communicating with God or a way to refocus thoughts toward a more spiritual life.
Spirituality: being constantly guided by the Holy Ghost or living in tune with what feels right to you
God: describe God according to your own feelings or with the attributes the scriptures and prophets describe, no matter how contradictory.
I have read all of these possible interpretations at one time or another. And I don’t expect a discussion on each individual point, but rather the whole idea that we can essentially rewrite the entire doctrine of the church to suit us and still consider ourselves LDS.
(Moderators: If this is too complex or argumentative I will withdraw the post)
Great question IMO! I have to run out the door, but I hope to come back to this soon. Short answer: I think it is highly individual. At what point are we no longer LDS? That is really hard to define in a Church that has no creed (or vague at best). I’m not even sure excommunication would define a limit, since even those people are still technically welcome at Church if they are not disruptive (kind of depends on the situation).
Great questions, but I also am running out the door in about two minutes. Short answer: I think there are limits, but I think they are FAR fewer and FAR less obvious than most members think. More later, but, again, great questions.
Fantastic question. I guess for me, I like to think that the doctrine IS truth – as in defined by what is true and not the other way around. Yes, as humans our comprehension of truth is dark or cloudy much of the time, so we must recognize our own limitations in the mortal state. We believe that prophets are mortal and fallible, so their words are undoubtedly mixed with the limitations of their own understanding (this is why we are taught to discover for ourselves, or gain our own confirmation). For me a key illuminator of this principle is that Brigham Young actually taught the Adam-God theory; a view that has been denounced as false doctrine in more recent times. If a prophet taught false doctrine once (and was not removed for it) we can assume it could as easily happen again. The point of this is not to stand up and say “I know the truth better than the church leaders”, the point is to be assured in your own heart that doing what you personally feel is right – is the right thing to do. I believe our doctrine supports you in that, as long as you don’t have an agenda to damage or alter the church as a whole (some of the few limits Ray referred to).
Imagine you lived in 1856, and you personally listened to BY teach Adam-God. You then would have a choice, you could accept it as a true doctrine (as my own third-great grandfather did) or you could say to yourself “that is not the way I see it” as undoubtedly some members did. As time went on the general view of the church changed; those people who were “out of step” with BY at the time became “in step” with the church at a later time without changing their views. I see similar situations today. My views may not be “in step” with the church currently, but personally I think they may be in another three to five generations. I personally think it would be a shame if I felt I couldn’t be in the church today just as it would have been for the people who couldn’t accept Adam-God back in the day. This obviously isn’t a perfect corollary, BY himself stated A-G was not a required belief. To me however, the point is still relevant – that views and doctrines do change, and the goal of the LDS doctrine (at least from the early days) is to be aligned with what is actually true (as far as can be determined).
My views at least – I tend to see current doctrines and policies as subject to change instead of carved in stone.
So to the larger question: What does it mean to be LDS? I think it is simply to become the best that we can be. Love is the principle, everything else is secondary. Ordinances and doctrines can be helpful reminders, as long they don’t distract us from the primary objective. You know — like what Jesus taught.
I, too, will be off-line for a few days, but I appreciate your responses to this question so far. I sure would like to hear a wide variety of opinions on this subject, from GAs, traditional TBMs, NOMS, disaffected persons, etc. I’d like to think it is an individual decision, whether we feel part of the LDS church or not, and not dependent on an outside judgment of our testimonies.
Orson wrote:… you could say to yourself “that is not the way I see it” as undoubtedly some members did. As time went on the general view of the church changed; those people who were “out of step” with BY at the time became “in step” with the church at a later time without changing their views. I see similar situations today. My views may not be “in step” with the church currently, but personally I think they may be in another three to five generations. I personally think it would be a shame if I felt I couldn’t be in the church today just as it would have been for the people who couldn’t accept Adam-God back in the day. This obviously isn’t a perfect corollary, BY himself stated A-G was not a required belief.
I have been in this “in step” “out of step” situation before. One example: back in the day, I could not agree with all the “donations” we had to pay especially dues to belong to the 70’s quorum. Then a few years later the fees were all consolidated into the tithing. (though this example is of policy and not doctrine) But if I point out an area I disagree with, I am labeled an “ark steadier.”
Orson wrote:To me however, the point is still relevant – that views and doctrines do change, and the goal of the LDS doctrine (at least from the early days) is to be aligned with what is actually true (as far as can be determined).
I like the way you stated this, Orson. I hear you saying, rather than believing that the church has ALL the truth, that we are moving TOWARD the truth.Nonny, just a quick note: I read the final part of Jacob 5 (the allegory of the olive tree) as the pruning of the modern church. That’s the only way that it makes sense to me. Therefore, I have no problem accepting that “the bitter fruit” is part of the Church. I don’t want it to be there, and I pray it gets pruned out as quickly as is humanly (and divinely) possible, but it is interesting to contemplate that the Lord doesn’t do the pruning; rather, his servants (we) do it. To me, that means that much of the process of eliminating false doctrine and simple, social stupidity depends almost entirely on how ready and willing the membership is to participate in that process. “Servants” can be read narrowly as “prophets and apostles”, but it also can be read more expansively as “all who have covenanted to serve” – and, given my upbringing in orchard country, the latter makes more sense to me in the overall context of pruning.
In that light, I am completely in support of “reframing” – on both an individual level AND an institutional level. I just believe the institutional reframing has to move more slowly than the individual reframing, since the institution has to be aware of the possibility of moving too fast collectively and damaging “good branches” that might survive and produce good fruit with slower, more cautious pruning. That “awareness” can be conscious on the part of the leasdership, but it also can be an issue with the leadership needing to become more aware of what needs to be pruned. I see Pres. McKay’s unsuccessful efforts to end the Priesthood ban as a sort of preparation to prune (the digging about and dunging) – working tirelessly to get the tree ready for the pruning that Pres. Kimble eventually was able to initiate formally at the institutional level.
Iow, I believe Pres. McKay, especially, started to “reframe” the issue for many of the leading brethren, and then Pres. Kimble took over and finished the “reframing”. Once it was reframed collectively, the revelation followed immediately – and that new frame was codified.
My lunch break is almost over, so more later.
I often think about the “Gospel” being the container for truth as we know it. Joseph Smith talked a few times about “true Mormons” gathering all which is good, true, valuable and virtuous. This was in his last couple years mostly. That sense of universal truth appeals to me. If as Mormons have no creed, what creed must we follow in order to call ourselves “saints?” We are always encouraged in both tradition and canonized scripture to seek personal revelation, and to seek to know what is true. The amazing things about this concept is that we can still exist in a Church community together at all. Why doesn’t it splinter in a thousand directions? This was an issue briefly in the early 1830’s.
Since I don’t even think excommunication would prevent you from participation with the community, unless you are a disruptive person, then what does cut you off?
I would say have to accomplish two things to be LDS:
1. You have to want to be a part of the LDS Community. You have to be able to love and tolerate people who may not agree with your current understanding of things. You have to want to be a part of it all, and help build up the Church. It has to be your tribe. Basically, you have to self-identify as being LDS. You can’t be there to tear things down, to ruin the experience for others, or to cause the “tribe” damage and harm.
2. You have to personally be in line with current orthodox practices and beliefs, and support the mythology, or you have to have the patience to allow a difference between your personal beliefs and the official mythos of the Church. Somewhere in your heart, you have to be able to at least consider that story of the Church is divinely inspired and/or valuable. It has to at least be a possibility on some level, even if you don’t know. I don’t mean the Church is “True.” I need to clarify that, but at least God has a beneficial purpose in it.
To boil it down into a short statement, I would say this. To be LDS, someone has to want to be LDS on some level. They can’t be out to destroy and ruin the faith tradition. They have to find some enjoyment and purpose in being a part of the community. They also have to find the mythology beneficial on some level.
Valoel wrote:To boil it down into a short statement, I would say this. To be LDS, someone has to want to be LDS on some level. They can’t be out to destroy and ruin the faith tradition. They have to find some enjoyment and purpose in being a part of the community. They also have to find the mythology beneficial on some level.
Whew, I was thinking for a minute I couldn’t consider myself LDS anymore. I think this comment by Voloel, summarizes my current beliefs. I consider my self LDS, really a heretic, but LDS. I don’t want to put myself on par with Sterling McMurrin, because I don’t think I’m anywhere near as smart or genteel as he, but HBL said to him something like, “Men like you can be very valuable to the church or you can be very dangerous to the church.” McMurrin replied, “I don’t want to be dangerous to the church.” I don’t want to be dangerous to the church. I want to be a member of the church, I think. I guess my struggles revolve around wanting to at least be acknowledged and not marginalized. Maybe that is arrogance on my side. I don’t like the word “pride” as used in recent church context.
I like that story about Sterling McMurrin. Thanks for sharing it GDTeacher. “I don’t want to be dangerous to the Church.” That is a terrific and compact statement of purpose. I was just saying what I think about being LDS above. I am a heretic too, hehe, so don’t take my judgment as gospel. It just seems to me that someone has to want to still be a part of the “tribe” for some positive reason, even if that is only to make life easier for a loved one. The other point of believing in the mythology is to be able to see it as a positive influence for the participants. I don’t know if someone really has to believe the mythology is all factually true. It just has to produce practical value. It would seem difficult and a cause of great internal dissonance if someone thinks the LDS mythology is damaging and harmful to
allpeople — see no value, and nothing but harm. Some people make that decision, and make it a final decision, closed to further inquiry. Those people probably won’t be happy. They will also be inclined to “be dangerous to the Church” instead of a reality check (a valuable member of the Church, even if heterodox). Valoel wrote:
1. You have to want to be a part of the LDS Community…2. … you have to have the patience to allow a difference between your personal beliefs and the official mythos of the Church. Somewhere in your heart, you have to be able to at least consider that story of the Church is divinely inspired
and/or valuable….
I like your ideas here Valoel. They provide enough flexibility that almost anyone could fit into this framework, if they wanted to. One way I have come to feel more comfortable in a church setting is to accept the value in it for “that person.” I do not want to destroy anyone’s faith. I don’t even want to point out problem areas. Even in comments I can’t agree with, I can understand how that person can find value in that particular belief (most of the time). But I’m not confident that the reverse would be true, that my unorthodox beliefs would be accepted as providing value for me.Nonny wrote:Even in comments I can’t agree with, I can understand how that person can find value in that particular belief (most of the time). But I’m not confident that the reverse would be true, that my unorthodox beliefs would be accepted as providing value for me.
Hawkgrrrl says something that I like a lot: “The person with the greater knowledge has the greater repsonsibility.” I would add that we can follow the example of Jesus by being willing to suffer for others, especially unjustly. I have hope that its the higher path to love people as they are, and love them even if they do not understand us or are even afraid of us. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you — the golden rule.
People generally treat others poorly out of ignorance and a lack of empathic connection. The line from Jesus “forgive them, for they know not what they do” echos in my head and heart. What a beautiful model to follow. If people knew, they would likely not treat us with fear and anger. If they felt what they did to others, they would not want to be unkind. That is a wonderful part of the idea of becoming one with God and Christ, and indeed all of humanity.
One last thing to add, I would not see things like this and have the chance to think about them if I were not in the Church. Community with others creates the challenge.
Some good comments on this thread. Valoel wrote:I would not see things like this and have the chance to think about them if I were not in the Church. Community with others creates the challenge.
Amen! I try to say I love a good challenge.
Quote:To boil it down into a short statement, I would say this. To be LDS, someone has to want to be LDS on some level. They can’t be out to destroy and ruin the faith tradition. They have to find some enjoyment and purpose in being a part of the community.
I’ve said it before elsewhere, but the church allows for a lot of variation in belief, but less variation in behavior, probably because we see behavior but don’t have “windows on men’s souls.” Personally, I think there is something to the “loyalty” factor. If you are not against the church, you are for it (to paraphrase Jesus very loosely). Some members like to take that the other direction and say if you are not for it you’re against it, but those who like to judge others and feel right should also beware that they aren’t mistaking their own beliefs for doctrine when they are sometimes just culturally accepted norms that are incorrect.
On the loyalty factor, when JS was confronted with apostatizing apostles, some of whom were close friends, the one test they had to be able to pass to come back to the fold was to profess loyalty to him and the church. Is that the best test of one’s worthiness? Not necessarily, but it’s probably a good judge of how fit one is to be in an organization. If you ran a company, would you keep an employee on who would not be loyal to the company (e.g. promote its interests, not give away trade secrets, not sabotage whatever the company was creating)? I wouldn’t, no matter how brilliant or talented they were.
Nonny wrote:Orson wrote:To me however, the point is still relevant – that views and doctrines do change, and the goal of the LDS doctrine (at least from the early days) is to be aligned with what is actually true (as far as can be determined).
I like the way you stated this, Orson. I hear you saying, rather than believing that the church has ALL the truth, that we are moving TOWARD the truth.Yes! Thanks for stating it more succinctly. I like the saying “the church is truer today than it ever has been.”
Consider Christianity. There are some who want to make very narrow definitions and delineations, but the scholars say generally if you sincerely self-identify as a Christian, you are a Christian. I think that can apply to being LDS also. An unchurched, disconnected, heretical misfit is LDS if that what he/she insists. Nonny, based on your reply right above, it doesn’t sound like your question included any element of wondering how much subversion is allowed in being LDS. But that is a sincere question for me. Can I be subversive in intent?
I think that question is interesting. You can or once could be Moslem/Muslim if you believed a sword was a part of your missionary tools. Possibly a sword also sometimes has/had a part in being LDS, but never, I believe, as a missionary tool. So I think at this time it would be outside the cloud of common values if you said you were an LDS and you wanted to use the sword to make the LDS Church in your image or make the world in the LDS image. That’s an extreme. Somewhere of that, I believe you can be LDS and morally, benignly, mercifully subversive.
I would be openly contrary, but it wouldn’t be genteel.
KM
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.