- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Do you find value in discussing and questioning the doctrines of the church? Since I have become the non believer that I am I find it of little value to try and analyze anything doctrinally about the church. If it is Adam God or the 3 hour block it seems all manufactured for the current environment so what is the point? How can you dissect a phantom frog. It is not really there. I can act like I am dissecting a frog but it is all pretend. I am interested however in the cultural aspects that the church continues to try and define. I find their ability to persuade members to believe and obey fascinating.
Quote:Do you find value in discussing and questioning the doctrines of the church?
Yes, on a purely theoretical level, since I just love to think about things like history and religion (the classic Social Studies) – and since I like to figure out what I personally believe.
No, when it comes to arguing about it.
Cadence wrote:Do you find value in discussing and questioning the doctrines of the church?Since I have become the non believer that I am I find it of little value to try and analyze anything doctrinally about the church. If it is Adam God or the 3 hour block it seems all manufactured for the current environment so what is the point? How can you dissect a phantom frog. It is not really there. I can act like I am dissecting a frog but it is all pretend…I am interested however in the cultural aspects that the church continues to try and define. I find their ability to persuade members to believe and obey fascinating. To me what is interesting about some of the central LDS doctrines like the WoW, prophets, tithing, temple marriage, testimony, priesthood, chastity, the restoration, etc. is not so much the question of whether they are true more or less the way the Church teaches (I have almost no confidence whatsoever in that) but questions like how did these doctrines originate and evolve into what we have now?, What purpose do they serve?, What are the realistic chances of the Church making significant changes to them anytime soon?, What are some of the unintended side-effects of these doctrines at this point?, What are the advantages and disadvantages in each case?, etc.
For example, eternal marriage could easily turn out to be completely imaginary but for practical purposes it looks like it has been a major factor in the Church’s growth so far because it is possibly the Church’s single favorite sales pitch to try to explain why people should want to be good obedient Mormons to begin with and it’s also one of the main reasons why obedient Mormons are fairly likely to only marry other obedient Mormons which seems to help retain adult members and make it more likely that they will successfully pass the same Mormon traditions on to their children. So I would be very surprised if the Church ever changes this doctrine much in my lifetime even though I personally don’t like it because I wasn’t married in the temple and mostly associate it with not-so-subtle manipulation and harsh unfair judgments against those the Church calls unworthy.
Quote:“questions like how did these doctrines originate and evolve into what we have now?, What purpose do they serve?, What are the realistic chances of the Church making significant changes to them anytime soon?, What are some of the unintended side-effects of these doctrines at this point?, What are the advantages and disadvantages in each case?, etc.”
This.
No. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Quote:
For example, eternal marriage could easily turn out to be completely imaginary but for practical purposes it looks like it has been a major factor in the Church’s growth so far because it is possibly the Church’s single favorite sales pitch to try to explain why people should want to be good obedient Mormons to begin with and it’s also one of the main reasons why obedient Mormons are fairly likely to only marry other obedient Mormons which seems to help retain adult members and make it more likely that they will successfully pass the same Mormon traditions on to their children. So I would be very surprised if the Church ever changes this doctrine much in my lifetime even though I personally don’t like it because I wasn’t married in the temple and mostly associate it with not-so-subtle manipulation and harsh unfair judgments against those the Church calls unworthy.And this can have devastating effects on LDS people in parts of the world where there isn’t choice in a fully active LDS mate. Taken with over-simplified conceptions of a happy marriage (as long as he honors the priesthood, everything falls into place, or ‘as long as they honor their temple covenents all will be well’, or ‘as long as they live the gospel, they can have a happy marriage), I think this emphasis on marrying active Mormons is more for the church than the individuals themselves.
I haven’t posted much lately but this caught my eye. 
I’ve come to a point where I don’t think that the CoJCoLDS is the “one true church” or that JS had all the experiences he said he did or whatever. So many of the church’s teachings and doctrines are completely uninteresting. WoW, tithing, obedience to prophets, etc. are just not worth the contemplation I used to give them because I just don’t believe everything is direct from God as church teaches.
That being said, I am fascinated by the teachings surrounding agency, the eternal nature of families, eternal progression, and other things. I think for me it’s that the doctrines surrounding the nature of our existence seem so much more important than the overemphasized temporal obedience parts of the church.
Although I may not believe everything was restored and the church is God’s one true church, I can’t say God hasn’t worked through it. I have felt it. Even the priesthood power, whatever it is, is something I’ve experienced. Do I believe it was restored the way JS said? Not really, but I’ve still felt it when giving blessings. So something IS there… I’ve just let go of worrying about how it got there or if the church has a monopoly on it. It is what it is.
Perhaps the biggest change is that as a tbm I liked to try and connect weird doctrines to a greater whole. I had the assumption they were all true so somehow they must fit together. It was through this process that I came to realize how much they don’t fit.
I guess I still find value in discussing/contemplating how the church and some of its teachings fit in the universe, but no longer how to fit the universe into the confines of the church and its teachings.
Quote:I guess I still find value in discussing/contemplating how the church and some of its teachings fit in the universe, but no longer how to fit the universe into the confines of the church and its teachings.
Well said. I love this statement.
wuwei wrote:I’ve come to a point where I don’t think that the CoJCoLDS is the “one true church” or that JS had all the experiences he said he did or whatever.
So many of the church’s teachings and doctrines are completely uninteresting. WoW, tithing, obedience to prophets, etc. are just not worth the contemplation I used to give thembecause I just don’t believe everything is direct from God as church teaches. That being said, I am fascinated by the teachings surrounding agency, the eternal nature of families, eternal progression, and other things. I think for me it’s that the doctrines surrounding the nature of our existence seem so much more important than the overemphasized temporal obedience parts of the church.
Although I may not believe everything was restored and the church is God’s one true church, I can’t say God hasn’t worked through it. I have felt it. Even the priesthood power, whatever it is, is something I’ve experienced. Do I believe it was restored the way JS said? Not really, but I’ve still felt it when giving blessings. So something IS there… I’ve just let go of worrying about how it got there or if the church has a monopoly on it. It is what it is.
Perhaps the biggest change is that as a tbm I liked to try and connect weird doctrines to a greater whole. I had the assumption they were all true so somehow they must fit together. It was through this process that I came to realize how much they don’t fit.
I guess I still find value in discussing/contemplating how the church and some of its teachings fit in the universe, but no longer how to fit the universe into the confines of the church and its teachings.
I’d have my own list of what’s no longer interesting, but plain old indifference to many discussions at church is part of what fuels my “crisis.”
Ann wrote:I’d have my own list of what’s no longer interesting, but plain old indifference to many discussions at church is part of what fuels my “crisis.”
I agree. I think although I find it somewhat interesting still I find that it’s much less so now.
I think that a great product of our “crises” is usually an increased ability to worry about and live in the “now”. Its much more productive IMO.
I find WoW useful to me on a physical level, and also on a psychological level as well. It’s certainly helped my health, although there are many other things I could do beyond that and my health is far beyond perfect! By the way Cadence, not sure what you mean by “phantom” here? Do you mean doctrine which is transient and everchanging? Or that has no physical substance?
SamBee wrote:By the way Cadence, not sure what you mean by “phantom” here? Do you mean doctrine which is transient and everchanging? Or that has no physical substance?
More like no substance. If something does not exist how can you analyze it. As I have said in the past you can study the belief in leprechauns but you will never be able to study an actual leprechaun. You can parse Mormon doctrine all day but it is still just parsing the random thoughts of an individual for the most part. No real substance. It only has substance because people believe it to be so.I see what you mean but some are tangible some are not. You can see physical benefits from tithing – facilities, utilities, publications, events – and WoW has physical effects (disputed)
SamBee wrote:I see what you mean but some are tangible some are not.
You can see physical benefits from tithing – facilities, utilities, publications, events – and WoW has physical effects (disputed)
Interesting that those are the things they rarely talk about. Tithing benefits are always referred to in the abstract. Bag of groceries on the porch and all of that. So in this case you could look at the functionality of tithing, but not the doctrine that is taught. It simply is not tangible.
Tithing is generally taught as “fire insurance” in my experience. I like the idea of teaching about the practical things it pays for, but that’s not really why we’re taught to pay it. It’s either to show god we love him so he’ll bless us or just “because god said so”. With the WoW it’s not that it’s bad advice. A lot is good. Some is eh. I could stand to eat healthier, for sure. But we don’t stress the eat healthier part. We teach that God will help us run without fainting if we don’t drink coffee. Personally, I think I’d run a lot better if I ate less meat. I’d also probably run a bit faster if I had a double espresso. But I can eat all the meat I want and still get a tr.
If we taught the wow better as a principle of being healthy instead of a principle of proving ourselves to god so he’ll bless us, or simply as a way to separate ourselves from the “gentiles”, I think we’d all be better off. The problem isn’t the WoW as a principle, its the doctrine built up around it and the way its taught.
But the way I understood the question was that all of my above discussion is pointless if none of it is actually doctrine from god.
Its like people arguing over whether my doctrine is to cheer for club america or for chivas. But in reality I could not care less about Mexican football…
That’s how I look at a lot of this. We debate this and that in church and in reality I doubt god cares one bit what I drink or how much I help pay for the church to buy iPads for missionaries, he cares about how I treat the gift that is my body and whether or not I use my excess to help those less fortunate than myself.
I can’t wait for the day we focus on principles and not applications. The only principle focused on seems to be obedience. Everything comes back to “because god said to”. But there has to be more. We’re supposed to be becoming more like God, yes? What part of blind obedience helps us become like him?
Unfortunately debating the tangible merits of church teachings is hard. Half the things in the wow are in direct opposition to medical science. We can’t really know where our tithing goes because they won’t tell us. So we speculate. We rationalize.
The intangibles are harder. Whether obeying commandment x leads to god granting blessing y is not really demonstrable. Even if a perceived blessing is received, correlation cant prove causation. But reducing doctrine to such quid pro quo statements happens all the time and is unfortunate. Moreso when the stated blessing is something that isn’t even realized in this lifetime. We should choose the right to show our unconditional love for god without an eye to a “reward”–temporal or spiritual–just as we’d expect god to love us without conditions.
Phantom doctrine is found in the contrivance of the aforementioned quid pro quo statements. It is also found in other forms of tangential speculation regarding teachings “not pertinent to salvation”.
For me the things pertinent to my salvation is a short list.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.