- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I did a post on the ideas and other features that I really love about Mormonism that you can’t find in other religions, as well as those that I think are the pits. Here’s a link: https://wheatandtares.org/2019/04/17/the-best-worst-of-mormonism/ My take: Good:
* Eternal families: this is a really good defence against bereavement.
* Personal revelation, open canon
* i like the range of speakers at church (although to be fair this is found elsewhere)
* Priesthood is spread across the membership (but women…)
Neutral:
* Living prophet… This means absolute devotion on the one hand and on the other potential to iron out the creases in church policy. (By the way Muslims consider Adam a prophet too)
* Polygamy – more controversially I’ll put this here. Why? I feel it is part of the past, not really the present. (Except fringe sects) I’m well aware of it but it’s not part of my church life.
* Theosis: positive in its outlook of humans and negative in terms of creating arrogance.
* Heavenly Mother: this concept is so underdeveloped in our theology it’s hard to say much about her.
Bad
* Correlation. We’re on the same page!
” Emphasis on authority and top down hierarchy.
* An overburden of doctrine. We have a lot. Which to use?
* Pressure to marry, serve mission etc.
There’s theory and there’s practice. We have the theory of open canon but I haven’t seen us leverage that. To put it into perspective, the CoC is up to section 165 in their D&C and has updates as recent as 2016. We’ve got the pseudo-scripture of tFaPttW. Maybe it’s semantics. Many sections in the CoC’s D&C could best be described as policy changes. We’ve had lots of policy changes more recently but most changes are chronicled in handbooks, some private, none considered scriptural.
I know what DFU and a few other leaders have said recently about the restoration being ongoing but I think for the longest time leaders have operated with this idea that Joseph restored the church. He was the prophet of the restoration. Any new doctrines have got to go back to something revealed during his tenure as church president. Even one of the more recent changes to call the church by its proper name is rooted in revelation received by Joseph.
So open canon… it feels like we opened the door a crack, let a few more things in, then slammed the door shut again. IMO correlation has contributed to that. It has us looking backwards, not forwards.
And now I wonder… would I want a more open canon? I bet the first thing that would go into a newly open canon would be the proclamation. nibbler wrote:
And now I wonder… would I want a more open canon? I bet the first thing that would go into a newly open canon would be the proclamation.
Well it is still theoretically open. At least one section – OD2 (1978) was added in living memory.
nibbler wrote:
And now I wonder… would I want a more open canon? I bet the first thing that would go into a newly open canon would be the proclamation.
There are still those who believe everything said in GC and everything in the Ensign is scripture.
Here are my thoughts: GOOD:Our Treatment of Eve in the Garden of EdenStart in the Community/Networking– I am grateful for the script that allows me to show up at church and have a foot-in-the-door friendship wise. Open Cannon ConceptDuality of Individual Revelation line and Organization Revelation line– While this creates paradoxes whenever they come into conflict, and people usually disagree to what degree to privilege a specific line, at least we recognize both lines of revelation. MEH:Modesty LessonsGender Roles– I feel that the church organization is in the process of evaluating and expanding on how women can serve in the church and in giving them more spaces to voice their opinion in. I feel that there is a long way to go in equalizing authority in the church and home. BAD:Executive Functioning in Church– Not only is it divided by gender (for example, my father got weird looks from his quorum when he worked with his home teaching companion to prepare and take over a meal to one of the brethren he ministers to), but I feel that there is hand-waving going on between the genders regarding what executive functioning looks like. I have seen and heard about sisters tuning out during Priesthood lessons (which is fine as far as it goes) – and while I have an idea what the priesthood responsibilities of maintaining the buildings, giving blessings, passing the sacrament looks like, I know that I don’t know about all the executive functioning that goes on behind the scenes in leadership meetings for the brethren. I believe that the brethren do not comprehend what goes into running the church community gatherings (potluck organizing, funeral luncheons, etc.). I feel that the focus on admonishing the sisters in September to run the Home Supported Program without a similar message for the brethren sends a clear message that this executive functioning responsibility gets dumped in the sisters’ lap. I’ll keep mine short. GOOD:
When there’s an actual need people generally mobilize to help.
MEH:
Our Sunday meetings. I don’t feel like they meet my spiritual or social needs. Listening to our activation efforts, the principle reason to show up on Sunday is because “we’re supposed to.” That’s not a very good reason.
BAD:
Obsession with worthiness. Holding worthiness interviews. Temple recommend status. Pigeonholing people into a label – investigator, convert, inactive, worthy, not in good standing, etc.
I see a lot of good people suffering because they believe they are not good enough. Perfection is the enemy of good.
Good: -Focus on service
-Focus on the family
-Rituals
-Inherent worth of the individual
-Uchtdorf, Christofferson, Holland
Meh:
-Open canon (GC talks are generally accepted as “canon”)
-Public work projects (housing, retail developments, beautification projects)
-Ministering program
Bad:
-Obsession with “truth”
-Obsession with Church leaders, especially the prophet
-Determining “truth” through “feelings of the spirit”
-Worthiness (you can have “worth” but not be “worthy”?)
-Pious fraud
-Judgement of “others”
nibbler wrote:
And now I wonder… would I want a more open canon? I bet the first thing that would go into a newly open canon would be the proclamation.
Last I checked, the proclamation was canon.
It’s not officially in the scriptures but it is most certainly quoted as if it were scripture, even during GC. Probably another semantics issue. I was referring to official canon but the practiced canon is open. Essentially the exact opposite of what I was saying in that other comment.
🙂 I don’t have all my what I define as scripture figured out yet, but I am an individual open cannon person. If scripture is defined as “the words of people that should be listened to and taken seriously on a personal level” – then my personal cannon is some General Conference talks/teachings, some posts on this site, some inspirational self-help like books, other books (such as the Book of Mormon), some ASD writers, and a variety of religious scholars.
If scripture is defined as “records of interactions between individuals/groups of people and God”, then I don’t know yet.
nibbler wrote:
Probably another semantics issue.
My definition of LDS scripture/doctrine comes down to whatever I could say is scripture (or not scripture) in SS or over the pulpit without getting lynched.
dande48 wrote:
nibbler wrote:
Probably another semantics issue.
My definition of LDS scripture/doctrine comes down to whatever I could say is scripture (or not scripture) in SS or over the pulpit without getting lynched.
So you could say the Proclamation is scripture without getting lynched, just as you could say whatever was in last GC is scripture without getting lynched. But there would be lots of people keeping their pitch forks in the shed who know they’re not really scripture in the canonized sense (and they would include heretics like me as well as some orthodox members). And there might be times depending on the context and the audience (and how many allies I have in the room) when I might say something like “I was speaking of the canon” or “Let’s stick to canonized scripture.” I know there’s been some conversation in other threads about the CoC and how their D&C has continued to grow. Their canon does include things like the Proclamation. In that sense, I am glad ours is more limited.
When it comes to open canon, I think it’s a huge mixed blessing. The attitude of it is helpful (in not taking the scriptures too seriously), but let’s be honest. So much of this stuff just doesn’t hold up. Jane Austen provides more insight into human nature and virtue than the Book of Mormon (I’ll put the New Testament on par), and light years ahead of the lawyer-written Proc which is mystifying in how little it understands human nature. It’s really just a prescribing of gender and family roles to uphold culture wars and fight gay marriage. It’s not wise. It’s not insightful. When I find that someone likes it, I instantly think less of them. Nibbler:
Quote:BAD:
Obsession with worthiness. Holding worthiness interviews. Temple recommend status. Pigeonholing people into a label – investigator, convert, inactive, worthy, not in good standing, etc.
Excellent point. Also, the idea that anything we do “earns” us God’s grace or that some of us have earned it and others have not. The new word is “qualifying” for grace.
We have a bonus program we do for our employees, and I was talking with one of them because she was upset that she had missed one of the growth goals she’s been assigned, and she said it wasn’t fair if she wasn’t paid anyway. I told her she needed to get rid of that idea because her being paid was a byproduct of two things: 1) company growth, and 2) our generosity at being willing to share profits with our employees. You don’t get a bonus just for doing the basics.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.