New Official Doctrine article

[Anonymous]

It seems like there’s a theme here of mixing “Mormon Doctrine” with “Official Doctrine.”

The article Don wrote points out purposely the narrow definition of Official and universally binding doctrine (even though I agree the scriptures contain contradictions, leaving wide opportunities for personal interpretation). Since it is universal AND binding, it’s best that it be narrow.

The larger body of contemporary Mormon Doctrine, the current teachings and interpretations of Official Doctrine by leaders, is broad. The key here though it is not binding and is VERY likely to change as we adapt to our world around us.

It sounds official when a GA says something. In fact, it may be somewhat binding depending on our personal views of their infallibility. BUT someone like me can more easily and comfortably say “I don’t believe them or agree with that interpretation” and also argue that I am a member in good standing.

As was also pointed out already, our faith doesn’t have to vaporize when there are changes and adaptations in the larger body of non-Official teachings. In fact, I should expect and anticipate change happening.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

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.

Wow, Gail.

You are asking some powerful questions. It sounds to me like the old paradox of being tolerant of everything except intolerance. How do you show compassion for people who are really hurting and still not appear to not be challenging the Church officials? My take on issues that I do care about deeply is to try to stay under the radar, and hope I can come out the other side OK. Maybe I’m less of a Christian for it, but I just try to deal with the issue between my ears, and don’t do much in my external reality, especially with the Church.

[Anonymous]

Gail wrote:

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?

Great questions. The thing is, the answers are simple…and complex (well, as I see it anyway). The answer to this question is – we can’t. Of course they have power to affect the loving behavior in our wards. Of course they could affirm the homosexual lifestyle and possibly prevent many suicides. Of course they could praise intellectuals instead of branding them as prideful or worldly etc.

Gail wrote:

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.

Oh man, what a loaded question. Here’s some questions I ask myself when contemplating the answer:

1. what does it mean to “work for change”? Should I protest? Should I follow Gandhi and use passive resistance? Should I speak out in church regardless of the consequences?

2. what do I think the leaders should do, and what are the associated consequences to themselves, the organization, and the millions of followers who clearly rely heavily (too heavily admittedly) upon them? Should the leaders who care more for “the one” speak out, possibly contradicting the others and break the unified front they manifest? Would that be okay to do, or would thousands of Saints sense discord and leave? Should they make a proclamation recanting their previous position on a particular subject and admit they were wrong? Would this destroy the faith of thousands (which may be an insignificant issue if you are disaffected, but if you believe that this is the only path to exaltation, then pushing someone out of the church would weigh heavily upon your mind I bet)? Would this undermine supposed Biblical injunctions and be seen as “lowering standards”? Is the mantle equally important as people? I think it might be easy to say no, but think about how important the prophetic mantle is in our church. Keep in mind we have fought (literally killed and used force) to (ostensibly) retain our rights and prophetic mantle in this church in the past.

You see, once you start to analyze the situation a bit you quickly realize that if you were in the position of the leaders, and really believed the product you are selling, you might have a very tough decision on your hands.

I readily admit and agree with you that we ought to help people. And I do try to work hard in my own way, within my own community, playing by their rules, to do what I can. And it is very easy to wax idealistic, and quote scriptures about love being the ultimate thing, and quote parables by Jesus and whatnot. The thing is, it’s not real life. We’re human, we screw up, we get confused, we believe strange things sometimes, and get priorities messed up (maybe mine are messed up ). Again, I try to focus on me, and what I can do, and let everyone else focus on doing what they think they should do (including the leaders of the church). Clearly (from my comments) I am critical of them, but I am also understanding, and I still sustain them in their calling (though some might think otherwise).

[Anonymous]

Euhemerus,

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

“Great questions. The thing is, the answers are simple…and complex (well, as I see it anyway). The answer to this question is – we can’t. Of course they have power to affect the loving behavior in our wards. Of course they could affirm the homosexual lifestyle and possibly prevent many suicides. Of course they could praise intellectuals instead of branding them as prideful or worldly etc.”

I believe there are plenty of things the brethren could do without affirming the homosexual lifestyle or changing their policy on homosexual behavior. If they simply put as much efforts into teaching our local wards what the first presidency has said on the subject of homosexuality in the last 15 years would do a mass amount. It they directly pointed out how these statement are in direct opposition with statements from the 70’s and before, heck even from the 80’s. This would go even further. There statements have completely changed from saying that the origin of homosexuality is personal iniquity to directly saying that they do not know what causes homosexuality. If they took one step further and said that homosexuality can not be changed and we should stop attempting to do so that would go a million miles. If they had a letter in every ward asking members to embrace their homosexual brothers and sister that live in each unit of the church and say to the homosexual member we will embrace you if you choose share with your word members your orientation this would come close to eradicating the problem completely. These are all relatively simple things they could do without changing any doctrine. I must admit that in my opinion even reversing there policy on homosexual behavior would not affect anything Don is calling official doctrine in his paper.

“Oh man, what a loaded question. Here’s some questions I ask myself when contemplating the answer:

1. what does it mean to “work for change”? Should I protest? Should I follow Gandhi and use passive resistance? Should I speak out in church regardless of the consequences?

2. what do I think the leaders should do, and what are the associated consequences to themselves, the organization, and the millions of followers who clearly rely heavily (too heavily admittedly) upon them? Should the leaders who care more for “the one” speak out, possibly contradicting the others and break the unified front they manifest? Would that be okay to do, or would thousands of Saints sense discord and leave? Should they make a proclamation recanting their previous position on a particular subject and admit they were wrong? Would this destroy the faith of thousands (which may be an insignificant issue if you are disaffected, but if you believe that this is the only path to exaltation, then pushing someone out of the church would weigh heavily upon your mind I bet)? Would this undermine supposed Biblical injunctions and be seen as “lowering standards”? Is the mantle equally important as people? I think it might be easy to say no, but think about how important the prophetic mantle is in our church. Keep in mind we have fought (literally killed and used force) to (ostensibly) retain our rights and prophetic mantle in this church in the past.”

Yes, these are all questions I have asked myself and do ask myself. Some I have answered, some I have not. Likely everyone who has asked these questions have and will come up with different answers.

I have gone to prop 8 protests and held up a sign with the 11th article of faith. I am not sure what following Gandhi really looks like in this context. Maybe someone else does. I sit with my mouth shut in church. I do speak with my friends, family, my bishop, send letters to the brethren, and blog heavily on LDS blogs. It seems I could do more, but I do not know what.

What do I think leaders should do? I hope and believe there is a lot of discussion behind close doors. I believe some of the twelve likely see things as liberally as I. I hope as we as members are willing to share our views and our pain some may change there mind, and maybe some will disagree louder behind closed doors. This all may be completely untrue. They all may be as one behind close doors. I certainly hope not. I believe if they spoke out more differently than they do it would change church culture and procedure forever or result in an excommunication. If you read and watch carefully there are differences in what the GA’s say. And I believe by looking at what some choose not to say you can see some of what they really believe.

Recanting? They have come out with reversals on more than one occasion, never seen by the faithful as recanting, and the general membership seem to have a very short memory about what came before.

Besides the membership has the ability to turn on a dime. Last year after the failure of Common Ground in Utah, an attempt by liberal law makers to put into law in Utah what laws leaders of the church said they did not oppose during prop 8, papers all over the state polled the Utah citizenry on whether homosexuals should have housing and employment protection. All reported results in the neighborhood of 70% apposed. After the Church read a statement this fall in Salt Lake City counsel meeting supporting a city ordinance protecting LGBT individuals from housing and employment discrimination papers all over the state again polled the citizenry. Almost across the board they reported about 70% in favor. Go figure. I believe whatever the church leaders say as a unit the Church will on a whole adjust to.

As far as a Biblical injunction the only two sources that condemn homosexual behavior the leaders of the church already significantly contradict.

1. Leviticus, outside of the condemnation of homosexuality the only thing the church not treat a remnant from an earlier time is the few times it quotes one of the ten commandments. All the other abominations are things like selfish and pork.

2. Paul, this is the man who claims that you can serve God better if you remain unmarried and the only reason to marry is if you cannot control your sexual impulses. These things are directly in contradiction to Mormon doctrine and practice, why not throw the condemnation of homosexuality in the same pit of scriptures we never read in a Sunday School lesson?

[Anonymous]

Gail wrote:

I believe there are plenty of things the brethren could do without affirming the homosexual lifestyle or changing their policy on homosexual behavior.

I agree completely. Not sure if you’re just opining here, or wanting resolution, or looking for answers or what.

Gail wrote:

If you read and watch carefully there are differences in what the GA’s say. And I believe by looking at what some choose not to say you can see some of what they really believe.

Yep, I agree completely.

Gail wrote:

Recanting? They have come out with reversals on more than one occasion, never seen by the faithful as recanting, and the general membership seem to have a very short memory about what came before.

Well, yes, but realize that this is a generalization. This is because the general membership puts such great faith in the leaders. But you surely realize that there will be a minority that is driven away with each subsequent change from the past. If you believe that being in this church is of prime importance that would change your tune likely.

Gail wrote:

Besides the membership has the ability to turn on a dime.

Hmmm, yes and no. It may be that the opinion of voters in Utah went from 70% opposed to 70% in favor after a statement by the church, but let me ask – did this change the culture for the thousands of homosexual church members in Utah? I suspect not, otherwise you wouldn’t be having an issue with this. Mormons in Utah will make the most conservative adjustments based on what the leaders say (makes sense given the culture in Utah). Mormon culture is much much slower to change.

Gail wrote:

As far as a Biblical injunction the only two sources that condemn homosexual behavior the leaders of the church already significantly contradict.

Whoa, hold on a sec. No need to justify to me what the Bible says. I know what’s in there, and I’m on your side here. I’m just trying to understand things from their perspective. Why are Mormons against homosexuality? I think the reasons are many, but there is no shortage of people who believe the Bible preaches against it. The point isn’t the bible. The point of my comment was that some people will perceive a relaxation or more friendly attitude towards homosexuals as a lowering of standards or otherwise immoral. I know it’s absurd, but I bet you could probably name a few who might even fall into that category.

I’m starting to get a little confused here. Do you just have an axe to grind with the way leaders address the topic of homosexuality? Are you just opining, but aren’t really upset about it? Are you interested in your own personal resolution to these issues? Do you want to make Mormonism your own, or do you want to change the church? I’m not criticizing, just trying to understand where you’re at.

[Anonymous]

Euhemerus,

Quote:

“Hmmm, yes and no. It may be that the opinion of voters in Utah went from 70% opposed to 70% in favor after a statement by the church, but let me ask – did this change the culture for the thousands of homosexual church members in Utah? I suspect not, otherwise you wouldn’t be having an issue with this. Mormons in Utah will make the most conservative adjustments based on what the leaders say (makes sense given the culture in Utah). Mormon culture is much much slower to change.”

I completely agree. This small change culture is very specific to the the polls in the news papers. The Utah legislature is in the same spot they were last year and that 70% is not telling their Law makers to change the law. I think the specific effect on Mormon culture of supporting the SLC’s ordnance was very small pretty specific. When reading comments made by Elder Holland after the support, and things written by Elder Oaks before the support I think we can see some of the brethren supported this change because they want change and others think the church needs to make some concessions to the left to slow or to continue the work to try and stop the culture change in this area. I think all are doing what they believe are right. My point here is that we as members have a much bigger ability to affect our culture and our leadership than we typically think. I think that the fact that we actually have affect helps to buttress the argument that we have a responsibility to do so. I now want to skip to the end of your post:

Quote:

“I’m starting to get a little confused here. Do you just have an axe to grind with the way leaders address the topic of homosexuality? Are you just opining, but aren’t really upset about it? Are you interested in your own personal resolution to these issues? Do you want to make Mormonism your own, or do you want to change the church? I’m not criticizing, just trying to understand where you’re at.”

These are great questions. I guess in some ways all of the above. I am passionate about this. If this is your definition about an axe to grind than yes. If the definition is only wanting to complain than no. Specifically I do think this is the best example to make my point, and I do believe the things I am saying are true, and I do care about them, I am not angry and sorry if I am coming across angrily. I believe part of my process of embracing Mormonism is figuring out what my responsibility for change lies and embracing that responsibility. If I am going to claim Mormonism as my church and my culture than I believe I have responsibility in the process. As I embrace Americanism I work to change the things that I believe are wrong some times that looks a lot like complaining. It does not mean standing ideally by and pretending our country is perfect. The same is true if I choose to be in a marriage, part of a family, work at a company, or member of a club.

Quote:

“Whoa, hold on a sec. No need to justify to me what the Bible says. I know what’s in there, and I’m on your side here. I’m just trying to understand things from their perspective. Why are Mormons against homosexuality? I think the reasons are many, but there is no shortage of people who believe the Bible preaches against it. The point isn’t the bible. The point of my comment was that some people will perceive a relaxation or more friendly attitude towards homosexuals as a lowering of standards or otherwise immoral. I know it’s absurd, but I bet you could probably name a few who might even fall into that category.”

Excellent point, church members do believe this. Many also believe the proclamation is not only scripture, but says something specific about homosexuality. I do believe these are challenges. I do believe there is education to do, but there was in 1979, as well. Many people believed that Blacks and the priesthood was scriptural as well. Some still do; I have many say blacks have the priesthood now because it is the fullness of time. Why would this not work for embracing homosexual members or changing policy on behavior? People do a lot of mental gymnastics to justify beliefs. In fact, in my opinion, they need to do this now to believe that our policies are justified. But that could me my mental gymnastics.

Thanks,

Gail

[Anonymous]

Gail wrote:

These are great questions. I guess in some ways all of the above. I am passionate about this. If this is your definition about an axe to grind than yes. If the definition is only wanting to complain than no. Specifically I do think this is the best example to make my point, and I do believe the things I am saying are true, and I do care about them, I am not angry and sorry if I am coming across angrily. I believe part of my process of embracing Mormonism is figuring out what my responsibility for change lies and embracing that responsibility. If I am going to claim Mormonism as my church and my culture than I believe I have responsibility in the process. As I embrace Americanism I work to change the things that I believe are wrong some times that looks a lot like complaining. It does not mean standing ideally by and pretending our country is perfect. The same is true if I choose to be in a marriage, part of a family, work at a company, or member of a club.

I think I understand now. I think we’re on the same page.

Gail wrote:

Excellent point, church members do believe this. Many also believe the proclamation is not only scripture, but says something specific about homosexuality. I do believe these are challenges. I do believe there is education to do, but there was in 1979, as well. Many people believed that Blacks and the priesthood was scriptural as well. Some still do; I have many say blacks have the priesthood now because it is the fullness of time. Why would this not work for embracing homosexual members or changing policy on behavior? People do a lot of mental gymnastics to justify beliefs. In fact, in my opinion, they need to do this now to believe that our policies are justified. But that could me my mental gymnastics.

Well, it sounds good to me. You’re preaching to the choir on this issue! I suspect most around here would agree with you.

[Anonymous]

I found value in reading this article (and all of your responses…great discussion!)

Isn’t the point of the article supporting exactly this example of the direction the thread has gone? We can debate homosexuality in the church (or any topic) and how church members should or should not treat each other, but what is the “Doctrine” about it?

On this subject, what do the 3 witnesses teach us (per Don’s essay):

What do the scriptures teach?

What is presented by the FP and Q12?

What does personal revelation affirm to me on the subject?

I can not argue anyone else’s point on the matter. Only what I believe to be true. Even if others disagree, or even if leaders take action against me, I choose to follow my conscience on what God tells me is truth and doctrine. I’m entitled to that (I believe that is doctrine).

Regarding what to do about it:

Quote:

1. what does it mean to “work for change”? Should I protest? Should I follow Gandhi and use passive resistance? Should I speak out in church regardless of the consequences?

2. what do I think the leaders should do, and what are the associated consequences to themselves, the organization, and the millions of followers who clearly rely heavily (too heavily admittedly) upon them?

I propose Joseph Campbell’s advice is helpful:

Quote:

Preachers err in trying to talk people into belief, better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery. – Joseph Campbell

I desire to make a change in my ward by radiating what I believe. If someone smells of smoke, or has admitted struggling staying in the church and being homosexual…I can visibly take their hand in friendship and treat them like anyone else, and let everyone else see my love for my fellow brothers and sisters. Even if no one else sees, that individual will know what I believe as a mormon. I can talk to those individuals one on one and tell them that I feel disappointed by how other members and even leaders treat me at times, so I can empathize if they feel they are treated poorly also. I can show them that not all mormons think that way, and be living proof of it, so that they can see the church is bigger than the imperfect members or the fallible leaders.

I don’t have to be passive and do nothing.

I don’t expect everyone else in the ward to change and be like me or think like me.

I don’t desire to require the Church to do or say things to meet my needs (That will inevitably lead to disappointment and frustration).

But I can actively love my fellow brothers and sisters and show what I feel is proper Christ-like characteristics in a humble and sincere way. And let the radiance of my discovery effect others or not…either way, I’m doing what I think is right and trying to make “my church” fulfill its mission.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Quote:

Preachers err in trying to talk people into belief, better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery. – Joseph Campbell

…

But I can actively love my fellow brothers and sisters and show what I feel is proper Christ-like characteristics in a humble and sincere way. And let the radiance of my discovery effect others or not…either way, I’m doing what I think is right and trying to make “my church” fulfill its mission.

Absolutely brilliant Heber. I love it!

[Anonymous]

Quote:

But I can actively love my fellow brothers and sisters and show what I feel is proper Christ-like characteristics in a humble and sincere way. And let the radiance of my discovery effect others or not…either way, I’m doing what I think is right and trying to make “my church” fulfill its mission.

I second Euhemerus’s comment. I believe your concept of making “my church” fulfill its mission absolutely fulfills the objective of StayLDS to help the readers find a way of responsibly relating to the Church. Few of us have power to change things on a corporate level, but we can make a huge difference on our local level. Whatever our sphere of influence is, whatever our stewardship is, we can exercise that in a “humble and sincere way”…”and let the radiance of my (our) discovery effect others or not”.

Many times, we don’t know what is “right”, ultimately, but most of the time we can discern what is good and promote that. Just not letting “right” get in the way of the “good” is enough for me. That is why I wrote this essay. I can now articulate what I feel about Church Official Doctrine to both TBM’s and anti’s calmly and clearly. Just this Sunday, I shared my understanding of Official Doctrine with a TBM, who commented about how much that helped him understand how other people (like me) can have a different experience with the Church and still remain in good standing. .

[Anonymous]

Here’s a fun,but relevant article from

“Think about what you read, whether it’s doctrine or not”

Robert Kirby,

Salt Lake Tribune

05/27/2010 04:33:25 PM MDT

IMO, Kirby has a pretty even balanced handle on many aspects of the issue. Enjoy.

http://www.sltrib.com/D=g/ci_15175516

[Anonymous]

I love Robert Kirby. I have all his books. Thanks for the link.

[Anonymous]

Dash – that is too good. It’s a pretty short article, very relevant to the topic, and I’m going to go ahead and post the whole thing here. I hope that is okay Admins?

Quote:

By Robert Kirby

Tribune Columnist

Updated: 05/27/2010 04:33:25 PM MDT

When Deseret Book announced it would not reprint Mormon Doctrine , I immediately thought of my Uncle Ed. The book was his spiritual guide, his religious hammer.

Uncle Ed swore by Mormon Doctrine . In fact, I once heard him say that if he were ever elected to anything, he would insist on repeating the oath of office with his hand on a copy.

When I left on my mission, he gave me an original “hardliner” edition of Mormon Doctrine , the one with all the doctrinal truths that were later quietly dropped, stuff about papists, blacks, communists and aliens.

I packed the book around South America for six months without reading it. I hung onto it because it was one of fewer than a dozen publications missionaries were permitted to read.

One day, stuck in a ratty apartment and running a 103 degree temperature, there wasn’t much else to do, so I picked it up.

I got through the first 10 pages, then skipped around. Finally, I put it down. Rather than making me feel better about the gospel I represented, it made me feel worse. It was heavy and ominous and not for me.

I’m far too independent when it comes to overly legalistic treatments of stuff I love. Faith for me is more art than bureaucracy, and Mormon Doctrine read like a history of rock ‘n’ roll penned by Joseph Stalin.

The book apparently worked out well for other Mormons, providing source material for millions of sacrament meeting talks, Sunday school lessons, and who knows how many angry debates.

Detractors of Mormon Doctrine decry various social injuries caused by it. Most often cited is the claim — in the hardliner edition — that the Catholic Church was the church of the devil.

I didn’t believe this then, and don’t now. That part was eventually taken out. Today, most Mormons understand that the church of the devil is really the Internal Revenue Service.

Note: Even the latest edition of Mormon Doctrine doesn’t say this. I thought it up and it sounded good. You’d be surprised how often that happens when people start writing about salvation.

Most religions have/had books like this, attempts to bureaucratize salvation. We could start with the Bible, especially the Old Testament, which seems to insist that God is something of a cosmic loan shark.

If you agree with everything you read in a church book or hear in a church meeting, you aren’t thinking hard enough. The human element — opinion — is present far too often for any book (or even doctrine) to be a theological guarantee.

The important thing to remember when reading anything is that the Lord gave you a brain and assumes that you’ll occasionally use it. If you find yourself reading something you don’t like (including this column), do what I do — read something else.

[Anonymous]

I liked the last 2 paragraphs which sum it up well:

Quote:

If you agree with everything you read in a church book or hear in a church meeting, you aren’t thinking hard enough. The human element — opinion — is present far too often for any book (or even doctrine) to be a theological guarantee.

The important thing to remember when reading anything is that the Lord gave you a brain and assumes that you’ll occasionally use it. If you find yourself reading something you don’t like (including this column), do what I do — read something else

Isn’t that really the definition of cafeteria mormon…you use your brain, find the things that make sense to you personally, and stuff that sits wrong…shelf it or go find something else to read that does uplift you? That’s not being weak in faith…it is being reasonable, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Dash, I posted this Kirby article on the “McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” Will No Longer Be Published” in Books Review, just to make it easier for me to find and other to discuss it. Hope that works.

[Author]

Posts