New Official Doctrine article

[Anonymous]

I agree with Euhemerus that defining the Standard Works as Official Doctrine can be very useful for someone struggling with their faith. Whether that definition is narrow or broad, pretty much depends on the reader. A stage 3 could get very legalistic about it, much the way Evangels get about the Bible and inerrancy, while a stage 5 could be following the spirit of the message with little concern for the letter. And both groups could both use selected quotes from the FP and Q12 to confirm their positions. It seems to me that we are free to make up our own version of reality. But we had better be careful because what we wish for hear we may well get in the hereafter. As I said in the essay:

Quote:

This should not be thought of as a cafeteria plan of salvation. While we are free to choose what commandments we obey, we are not free to escape the natural consequences.

There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated. And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. ( D&C 130:20 )

Further, I personally believe that when we truly seek the counsel of the Lord, we individually can know God’s will in our life (after reading the scriptures, and listening to the council of the Brethren.) Our answer may be much different than his will for our neighbor, so while it’s narrow in proscription for each individual, it is customized for each individual and hence may demonstrate great variability among individuals. Is that a narrow or wide interpretation of God’s will and/or Official Doctrine? I believe it can be viewed as either one equally well.

[Anonymous]

It strikes me as curious that the topic of Official Doctrine seems to be primarily about what it is not:

* Traditional doctrine and culture

* Mormons’ distinguishing characteristics

* Experiencing the different realities of Mormonism

* Pure Mormonism

Is the point of the essay that difficult to understand, or am I missing something?

Quote:

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone.

— Elder B.H. Roberts

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I stopped requiring “The Church” to change long ago and focused on changing “my church” wherever I lived – not in some judgmental way, but simply by trying to be the person others need. There’s a HUGE difference between insisting that others change and focusing on changing yourself.

One way to do that is to let go of “Official Mormon Doctrine” to every extent possible.

I think this is beautiful. It’s particularly resonant for me because it harkens back to my 1990 BYU days when I discovered that “I can make a difference in the ward!” You, Ray, are helping me rediscover that lesson. The church is really the ward. What a grand discovery.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I stopped requiring “The Church” to change long ago and focused on changing “my church” wherever I lived – not in some judgmental way, but simply by trying to be the person others need. There’s a HUGE difference between insisting that others change and focusing on changing yourself.

One way to do that is to let go of “Official Mormon Doctrine” to every extent possible.

Bingo!!! Another way of changing “my church” is through taking personal responsibility for all beliefs and actions. I use Official Doctrine to counter the heavy hand of authority others may try to lay on me, whether it’s an overzealous member, or an anti-Mormon lecturing me on what I believe. If an anti-quotes some weird BY statement from the Journal of Discourses, I just respond “not Official Doctrine”. When my church leader quoted the manual intro saying I “should” used only the manual material, I quoted the higher authority of the Scriptures counseling us to use the “best books”. For me, quoting scripture to establish or defend my freedom to choose is a kind of “malicious obedience.”

Quote:

D&C 88:118, 77-78

118 Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith…..

78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

79 Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

“The Church” CAN’T make that happen. It simple can’t. It happens locally, often as the result of a handful of people who simply refuse to not embrace everyone – who invite anyone and everyone to worship with them – who have no problem sitting with someone who reeks of cigarette smoke and has a visible tatoo – who would stand up in the middle of the sacrament being passed and hug a drunk who walked through the chapel doors. I stopped requiring “The Church” to change long ago and focused on changing “my church” wherever I lived – not in some judgmental way, but simply by trying to be the person others need. There’s a HUGE difference between insisting that others change and focusing on changing yourself.

One way to do that is to let go of “Official Mormon Doctrine” to every extent possible.

Absolutely brilliant. I couldn’t agree more, and I think this would summarize my approach. Rather than drawing distinctions and trying to clarify what is Doctrine vs. doctrine, I would make peace internally with the whole of it. I would focus on changing “my church” rather than “The Church.”

[Anonymous]

dash1730 wrote:

It strikes me as curious that the topic of Official Doctrine seems to be primarily about what it is not:

* Traditional doctrine and culture

* Mormons’ distinguishing characteristics

* Experiencing the different realities of Mormonism

* Pure Mormonism

Is the point of the essay that difficult to understand, or am I missing something?

Quote:

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone.

— Elder B.H. Roberts

No, no. I am claiming the opposite. I felt that the article was primarily pointing out what Official Doctrine is not. I am claiming that it is all those things (well perhaps not the third one), and that the narrow definition in the article is not a good characterization. But I see the point of the article nonetheless.

[Anonymous]

Don Ashton wrote:

When my church leader quoted the manual intro saying I “should” used only the manual material, I quoted the higher authority of the Scriptures counseling us to use the “best books”.

But see this is exactly where I find this position completely untenable. You could quote a scripture to refute virtually anything that is accepted as doctrine. My examples still stand:

1. An anthropomorphic God.

2. The nature of the Godhead.

Quote me a scripture that proves there are 3 distinct beings, and I’ll quote you one that says they’re one being.

The fact of the matter is that the living prophet trumps scriptures (or at least he interprets scriptures as he sees fit, and all other scriptures are interpreted in that light). Some such interpretations constitute doctrine without having been accepted officially because they are exactly an interpretation of scripture (which we claim to be doctrinal). So sure, you can say that we only support the scriptures as constituting official doctrine, but that’s so ambiguous as to be nearly worthless.

Frankly, I’m a little surprised that your bishop backed down. “Best books” is such a subjective term, and he easily could have argued that church produced books (and hence the manuals) were the “best books” and that others need not apply.

In any case, I’m not trying to be argumentative here, so I’ll just back down. It was just my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Don Ashton wrote:

Euhemerus, you made two references to a term I am unclear about the meaning of.

Quote:

I usually find any one school of thought usually lacking in being able to properly describe reality

Sorry, I was being unclear. For me, I usually find myself dissatisfied with idealistic approaches that try to characterize reality. So, in typical fashion (for me) I found the article lacking in properly describing what I consider to be Mormon doctrine (though I clearly concede the fact that my version of reality may or may not be actual reality). For me, probabilities and stochastics do a better job than idealistic approaches. I should have left that line out though because it didn’t come across quite right. Sorry about that.

Don Ashton wrote:

Quote:

the reality of Mormonism in which we live.

.

Are you indicating that reality is a constant never changing thing.

Sorry, that was unclear too. I do believe there is a true reality, but each of us sees it through our own lenses. So yes, reality is a constant (although certainly how reality looks is constantly changing), but the distinction is nearly worthless since we all only know our perception of it. For me, science in this regard, is the most useful tool for most accurately characterizing reality in an unbiased way. So the reality of Mormonism, I suppose is what I imagine most Mormons would consider to be Mormon doctrine. Since doctrine (the actual definition) means whatever a group believes, I think what is considered Mormon doctrine needs to be more encompassing.

But this is all sounding a bit polemic and philosophical, and probably isn’t getting us anywhere. The bottom line of my critique was simply that I think most Mormons would consider Mormon doctrine to include more than what was defined in the article. Nevertheless, as I said, I can see the utility of the distinction.

[Anonymous]

Euhemerus wrote:

Nevertheless, as I said, I can see the utility of the distinction.

As, increasingly, can I. I have been following the discussion. I see how this distinction could be helpful if I were assigned to teach a class, or in the unlikely event I were to run into somebody trying to shoehorn me into “orthodoxy”. I can also see how you are trying to get me to quit calling myself a heretic! Stop it! 😆 Yeah, I know. It’s a sickness.

[Anonymous]

Tom Haws wrote:

Euhemerus wrote:

Nevertheless, as I said, I can see the utility of the distinction.

As, increasingly, can I. I have been following the discussion. I see how this distinction could be helpful if I were assigned to teach a class, or in the unlikely event I were to run into somebody trying to shoehorn me into “orthodoxy”. I can also see how you are trying to get me to quit calling myself a heretic! Stop it! 😆 Yeah, I know. It’s a sickness.

I think the gist for me is that while the distinction might be a coping technique, we’re really splitting hairs here. Invoking this distinction to carve out one’s niche in an organization in which they are clearly heterodox will become tiring. To truly learn to live in the community comfortably one needs to make the church their own (metaphorically) rather than trying to fit in the church. It’s a perspective difference largely.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“The Church” CAN’T make that happen.

I guess I am not this highly evolved. I have a hard time swallowing this. For many years I have sat in church and heard things that sound very hateful said towards homosexuals over the pulpit or in classes. Most of what is said is in direct opposition with what the brethren are currently saying. I have always heard that church leaders cannot control what the membership do and do not say. I believed it for a long time. Until prop 8 we now see the real ability the Church has to direct the membership. So the leaders of the Church has the ability mobilize it’s members to donate millions to take away a segment of the population of California’s civil rights, but they have no control over how wards isolate homosexual members? Some how I struggle with this logic.

Quote:

I stopped requiring “The Church” to change long ago”

Again I guess I am not this evolved. When I see that three times the gay men of the church commit suicide as straight men I wonder how to change the culture of the church. I really do not think the church even needs to change it’s stand on homosexual behavior to make a difference in how painful it is to be a homosexual member, but the church has many policies that make the Church a painful place for homosexual members. The Church asks homosexual members to only share their orientation to a close family member and their bishop as if the orientation was a serious sin. They also ask us to refer to homosexuality as same sex attraction or same gender attraction, implying pathology. I believe one of the reasons why members who are mostly very loving people can say such hateful things about homosexuals is that because they do not know that there are homosexual members in every unit of the church, also with terms like same sex attraction we put the issue farther away form them. They have no idea that they are speaking to homosexuals right to their face. They are not even talking about real people they are talking about some mass hoard working to destroy the family somewhere in Babylon. There is also an assumption in the culture that their orientation is something that they must be healed from in order to go to heaven. How miserable is it seeing that no matter how hard you try your basic sexual desire does not change.

I am a member of this culture that is fundamentally broken in a way that makes it possible that a very high percentage of my homosexual brothers and sisters not only are living in misery, but actually commit suicide. Don’t I have a responsibility to stand up, speak out, and do what ever I can to change this culture? If we look through out history prophets believed in slavery, bigotry, and misogyny, and if it was not for people within the culture willing at personal risk to do what ever they could to change these wrong cultural ideas they would still be culturally accepted?

[Anonymous]

Gail wrote:

I wonder how to change the culture of the church.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with that, and I hope you and I never lose sight of the passion. But I am increasingly believing the answer is to simply change myself as I live joyfully in the church insofar as is possible given my own limitations. As they say, “All politics is local.”

[Anonymous]

Gail, homosexuality is a completely separate issue – and we discuss it directly and openly in various threads here. I suggest you look through the archives for those threads if you want to see how we deal with that issue.

[Anonymous]

Gail-

I’ll respond without addressing the homosexuality issue since that really isn’t the issue you’re concerned about. You seem to be concerned about the church marginalizing many people who reside in the extremities of the proverbial tent, and the role of our leaders in this vein. This is certainly a valid concern. I share your concern, and it was my number one gripe for quite a while. I still believe that Mormon culture is primarily a function of our leaders because in Mormonism, while we do not claim our leaders are infallible, we often act like it.

You are absolutely right, the leaders of the church could do much to dispel cultural nonsense in Mormonism – and sometimes they have (albeit at a snail’s pace). Yet, I am conflicted as to what I would expect/want them to do differently. Can I expect (or would I even want) the leaders of the church to address all the silliness? After all, their function (and it seems they are becoming more and more clear on this) is to preach theology, not biology, geology, physics, astronomy, etc. etc. Can I expect them to really claim responsibility for members’ willingness to abdicate their decision making? What about undermining what leaders have said in the past? For some members this will destroy faith not only in that particular leader but in the office/mantle itself. Our claim to prophetic authority is a central theme in Mormonism, and I think our allegiance to that ideal is often placed at the forefront of our decisions. One need not look any further than GC where each speaker unilaterally testifies of the prophetic mantle of the current President of the Church. Faith in the prophetic mantle is a central component of a testimony for an active LDS.

I do think that the leaders of the church often trade faith, strength, and loyalty to the organization for occasional marginalization of certain fringe groups of people. That is unfortunate, but not unexpected when leading such an organization. It is very very easy to wax idealistic and claim that leaders should be above loyalty to the organization in such a religion as ours. And I think their reasons are complex. Recognize that there will always be someone upset, or marginalized, or whatever. But it is easy for me to see that these people have devoted their entire life including their livelihood to this organization (believing that they are devoting it to God). What incentive do they have to say/do something that would weaken it? Even if they did have an incentive (e.g. they felt it the right thing to do) there could be serious consequences if it were perceived they were damaging the organization. Furthermore, many of the leaders of the church are business men. I think there is little doubt that the church is run like a large corporation. But again, I don’t expect much different.

This goes back to what we talked about in the other thread. At the end of the day you need to take control of your spirituality, and your experience in this church (if you want to stay). If you don’t like the culture, make a difference in your ward (although use love and persuasion otherwise you are no better than what you’re complaining about). If you don’t like a particular doctrine, fuhgettaboutit! Dr. John A. Widstoe once said when describing the philosophy of Mormonism:

Quote:

a philosophy of life which, because of its complete harmony with all knowledge, should be the one to which all men might safely give adherence.

Talk about widening the tent!! 😯

[Anonymous]

Ray,

Thanks for the suggestion. Now that I have spent sometime on this in the archives, maybe I should address my specific example directly in a post. Thank you.

Euhemerus,

Thanks for seeing beyond my lack of clarity. The two things I specifically am asking are: when we see the simply amazing power of the Church leadership has in many specific instances, how can we truly believe they have no power to affect the specific loving behavior in our wards? And when we as members of this culture see the fundamentals of this culture hurting certain individuals do we not have a responsibility to work for change? Particularly when we are talking about people dying, literally or figuratively.

[Author]

Posts