Stuff That Is NOT Doctrine

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

How do you make the distinction?

Yup, that’s the $64million question – and why we have to honor every individual’s right to make that call and value diversity of opinion about it.

Maybe I should answer my own question then. I do it case-by-case. The main questions I ask are, Does it make sense? Does it have mythological power?

[Anonymous]

That’s exactly my approach, tagriffy. It produces different results for me than for others, but that’s the way I do it.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

I found a very interesting paper titled Excessive Formalities in the Mormon Sacrament, 1928–1940 by Justin R. Bray, who “is an archivist at the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah. This paper, an outgrowth of his research on the Lord’s Supper in the Mormon Church, was written while finishing his degree in history at Brigham Young University in 2011.”

He explains that young men in the 1930s were sloppy when passing the sacrament. Local leaders had them wear white shirts and black ties. Other things were implemented:

Quote:

In some wards deacons were to simultaneously arise and strictly “march” to and from the sacrament table, keeping the arms that handle the trays at right angles. While waiting for the tray to be returned to them at each row, the deacons were to “stand erect with arms folded in front of them,” in order to avoid distracting the congregation. Many wards began to implement even more stringent and detail-attentive rules. In some wards, the deacons lined up to receive specific assignments according to their height.

Eventually, things had to be fixed. A blog post titled The Old Written Order of Things quotes the 1941 Aaronic Priesthood Handbook:

Quote:

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the very essence of simplicity and truth. The Church which bears His name must resist the introduction of formalities that may lead to ritual and imposing ceremony…In the administration of the Sacrament, while it is very desirable that the clothing and the general appearance of those who administer and pass it should be very neat, clean and appropriate, it is not desirable to require such uniformity in dress and action as to smack of formalism. Though white shirts and dark ties for the young men are proper, it should not be required that all be exactly alike in dress and general appearance…there should not be any requirement as to the posture or action while passing the Sacrament, such as carrying the left hand behind the back or maintaining stiffness in walking or any tendency toward military order in action.

Dang, I wish priesthood meetings didn’t smack of formalism.

I’ve been doing some more thinking about what I’m calling the “principle centered life.” The basic premise is to have core principles and then live our lives in ways that reflect those principles. Introspection and reflection are helpful in this. I was thinking about the suggestion that those passing the sacrament wear white shirts as symbols of the spotless nature of Christ. But denying a YM the privledge of passing the sacrament with his friends merely because of his shirt color is the anti-thesis of Christ. What is the underlying principle and how can we best reflect that principle.

[Anonymous]

I’m really excited to be moving back to my old branch in a couple of months. There is a very short list that’s considered doctrine. The church handbook certainly isn’t. In a good way I mean. White shirts and clean shaven is not an issue at all. I’ve seen the BP in a blue shirt and 3 days of stubble. Usually only at PEC, but occasionally church too.

The BP is a moderate guy who is also a close friend. I probably won’t share the full extent of my FC, but even if I did he’d not chase me out of town.

[Anonymous]

Hi Tagriffy, nice to have you join us.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

Hi Tagriffy, nice to have you join us.

Thanks. Someone recommended the board to me. I’m still not exactly sure what role I can play here, but I’m sure I’ll get it figured out.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

Doctrine, tradition or cultural conformity. Is there really a difference? They all come from the same source that is men. So I do not see the distinction

Actually, there is a hugely important difference in what is doctrine… not so much for us individually, I understand and agree that it is up to each of us to discern for ourselves. But within the Church, doctrine is immutable without specific revelation from God to change it. Culture and tradition are not. Therefore, what is doctrine will be very difficult to change, but if we can clearly define what is only policy or culture, or tradition, then we have the power to change it. Case in point is the priesthood ban. Because it was viewed as doctrine, the Church leaders felt powerless to do anything other than observe and defend it. It wasn’t until they started to view it as more of a policy than a doctrine, that they were finally able to consider changing it. Even so, according to those same leaders, they couldn’t simply change it, rather they took the matter to God and got the answer they hoped for. Some things that are doctrine that many of us wish could be changed, but will be difficult: polygamy, male-only priesthood. Some things that are maybe not doctrinal, and whose basis may only be tradition… the things we have a shot at changing: priesthood as hierarchy (not allowing for women to operate in true leadership positions), same-sex marriage stance, non-TR-holders can’t attend temple sealings, Word of Wisdom, pay tithing even if you can’t afford it, Church leaders speak the word of God even when chatting about whether eggs are better fried or scrambled.

[Anonymous]

I’ve said in much more detail on another thread, but paying tithing does not deliver financial blessings.

There are poor Mormons, rich Mormons and plenty in between.

Mormons (in the developed world) might often observe that they don’t want for their needs and can provide for their family and ascribe this to tithing. It’s worth pointing out that the following might also be the situation of a full tithe payer:

– Promise to be honest in their dealings

– Accept living ‘by the sweat of their brow’ as part of the plan

– Live within their means

– Avoid excessive debt and buy only when they can afford to

– Avoid wasting money on several expensive habits

– Account for their income – to pay 10% a month you have to also know what the 100% is

– Learn the principle of humility and not being materialistic, willing to ‘make do and mend.’

– Develop yourself to the best personal potential.

– Study from out of the best books.

The list goes on. The point is that most people (in the developed world) who lived with those personal standards would probably always be able to make their bills and not be left destitute. Some may even be significantly successful, in part due to god given talent that they are ‘multiplying on.’

None of this is dependent on tithing. But paying it might help to cement the commitment to do all the other things that do lead to financial prosperity.

For members in less developed markets, all of the above may or may not make much of a difference, depending on the circumstances they’re born into.

[Anonymous]

Obedience leading to “prospering in the land” is a communal promise, not one that holds up at the individual level for all people. Our understanding of Zion is founded on there being poor among us who become not poor due to the charity and love of those who have the most, not by the sudden, magical disappearance of natural poverty.

[Author]

Posts