- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
@Orson – thanks for the detailed reply. I’ll attempt to address most of your comments. First:
Atheism vs deism wasn’t the main point I was trying to make – simply an easy low-hanging fruit example. The point is that Mormon Doctrine, IMO, by definition begins with dogma, not truth. Many points of doctrine are dogmatically defined as true by the doctrine. One example is the atonement of Christ. From a Mormon Doctrine perspective this would be considered “truth”. All other truths are built up on top of this. So the view of reality/truth is always filtered or colored to some degree by Mormon beliefs. In other words I don’t think Mormon Doctrine can be defined as a search for the absolute truth, because there are things that if they are really true essentially destroy the essence of Mormonism – e.g. if there is actually no afterlife Mormon doctrine has an awfully hard time accommodating that.
Second:
I have no problem with the concept of God and with taking abstract things and saying that by definition, the embodiment of those things is God. I sort of see God, god concepts, mythology, etc. as art. I personally don’t believe that a supernatural being exists. However I like the idea of calling whatever aspects of humanity potentially moving us beyond the animal as God. To me personally that is what my sense of spirituality is – humanity moving beyond the animal. So I guess the scripture “the natural man is an enemy to God” fits very well into my personal sense of spirituality.
Also growing up Mormon I have no problem with hearing about and conversing about what I personally think of as “Mormon mythology”. I don’t mean mythology in a pejorative way – I think of it in a positive way. I see it as art to find meaning, ethics, love, etc. In other words in a sense I don’t believe Santa Clause exists but in another sense I do believe he exists very meaningfully as an idea. So “what is the nature of Santa Clause” becomes an interesting thing – inasmuch as what does he symbolize. I think of God much the same way.
Third:
At the end of the day there is only one actually reality. I don’t believe any human has anywhere close to a true sense of what that reality truly is. I personally believe that true reality does not include the supernatural, but I respect others ability to . Ironically while I believe that atheism is a more accurate view of reality/truth than theism I care a lot less about universal truth/reality than I did as a theist. I now accept my limitation that I will never understand actually truth/reality more in stride and it bothers me less that I will never understand it than when I was a theist. I kind of see beliefs and views of realities more as helpful or not helpful.
Forth:
What concerns me about God is when it is used negatively. Just like Santa Claus I see God used too often as a scare tactic to induce fear that if you aren’t good enough you won’t get any presents. More concerning is I see it used by people to gain advantage, power, etc. over others. I hate seeing the God concept used to diminish humanity in us vs. them thinking, dogma preventing truth, etc. An extreme yet poignant example is those involved in the Sep 11, 2011 hijackings as believing they were following God. I see the concept of God used both negatively and positively within Christianity and within Mormonism.
In other words going back to a previous point I often see religion and God used as a mechanisms for humans to act more animalistic not more humane. At best I’d call it an even wash. Honestly, my opinion is that religion and the concept of God has been used for more evil in the history of the world than good.
My biggest reason for this belief is that as I watch primates and humans I see a huge us vs them mentality. (Christ’s teaching of who is my neighbor is a great example of attempting to overcome this – Christ’s calling the Samaritan woman a dog, not so much.) I believe humans have very much evolved to be altruistic to their “tribe” and be competitive to those outside of their tribe. It’s an issue of competing for resources for survival. I would love to see humanity go beyond that and think of all humans as part of the same “tribe”. Unfortunately, I see religion doing more to increase the tribe mentality than to decrease it.
Again this is pretty compatible with things in the Mormon religion such as “the church of the devil” and “their lips draw near me, but their hearts are far from me.”
bc_pg wrote:I’ll attempt to address most of your comments.
Thanks for your thoughts. I follow everything you say, and they are good points. For me I guess I have largely moved beyond the present and the past, I like to focus on the future and the possibilities. It is helpful to me personally to frame my present and future activity in the church with the potential of future understanding and growth. That is why I prefer to contemplate where my #2 definition (True Doctrine = Truth) may take us, even though I recognize the #1 definition is more accurate presently and certainly has been in our history.
I love your characterization that True Doctrine = truth. Frankly I’m probably projecting a bit in my experience of Mormons trying to call Mormonism the pinnacle of truth in my responses to you. So I guess where I see the disconnect is Mormon Doctrine = True Doctrine. That is not to in any way diminish from your personal quest to find actual truth as your basis for your personal beliefs. The fact that you are at all involved in this site clearly indicates that you have moved well beyond Mormon Doctrine as currently taught in the church is the pinnacle of truth currently known by humanity.
Thanks for the opportunity to be so reflective.
Thanks, and yes there may be some disconnect between past Mormon Doctrine and future understanding of True Doctrine. Digesting that and then moving forward from that point is in my mind a key to being able to fully embrace truth — which to me is key to becoming closer to God — which is my ideal of True Mormon Doctrine. Past performance does not equate to future results. 
bc_pg, I think you’ll find that most of here recognize that there is a difference between what I call “pure Mormonnism” and “practical Mormonism”. There are some wonderful aspects of practical Mormonism, but nearly all of the tension we expereince, ime, is when those differences exist and clash. In a real way, that’s what you’re saying when you write about “Mormon Doctrine” and what I will call “Eternal Doctrine” – and my signature here addresses how I choose to “solve” the disconnect in my own life.
That’s what we’re all about here – not just recognizing the disconnected points but finding proactive, positive, workable ways to be OK and continue to participate, engage and/or contribute in various ways despite them.
Quote:Past performance does not equate to future results.
Of course the other side of that coin is:
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
bc_pg wrote:Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Exactly! I would actually call that the same side of the coin. It is our job to learn from history and apply the lessons to our personal growth. That is how we make the future better than the past.
:thumbup: This is a good thread. I nothing to offer.
John Dehlin’s had a pretty good interview with BYU professor Charles Harrel in episodes 317 and 318 of Mormon Stories podcasts regarding the evolution of Mormon doctrine. He seems to imply that most things evolve as we need it. That to suggest things like baptism were required going back to Adam are being less supported by scholars, including Mormon scholars of the Old Testament. Doctrines such as Jehovah and Elohim have evolved throughout time. We can clearly see how things evolved from Book of Mormon teachings of the church being a gospel or a group of people in 1829 to a much different definition of “the Church” as an incorporated entity and authority by 1833, years after it was officially organized (it started evolving from the get-go). The teachings of the Great Apostacy have evolved, and continue to do so.
Professor Harrell suggests we should adopt and be comfortable with flexibility in our doctrines, not try to make what we have now fit back into history. I think he makes some great points, and as a believing member, a thinking believer, he seems to be more tolerant of flexibility than what most of us experience in our wards.
I still like the 3 categories…doctrine, practice and personal interpretations. The trick is to agree on what fits into these categories, and detained if our definition of doctrine must include NEVER changing, or if we can accept our understanding of doctrine does change, as Orson mentioned, as we see it darkly.
If we say gospel teachings of love and service and taking care of the body and being responsible with procreative powers are doctrines that are universal and unchanging throughout history, I can get in board with that, and I think it would describe 90% of the world religions.
If we suggest ordinances are doctrinal…I would disagree and put ordinances in the practice category of what we have in our day, which differ from prior periods, even early church history days under Joseph’s leadership.
Priesthood power and authority is probably another one that changes over time. Teachings of pre-mortal and post-mortal existence has also changed over time…so I guess those are not unchanging doctrines.
So, I go back to my original statement, I think very few things meet the true definition of doctrine unchanging. Most are practices in our day, or a hybrid of doctrine and practice that change over time as we get additional revelation from prophets.
The stuff that is truly unchanging is not unique to Mormonism in the slightest.
Heber13 wrote:
I still like the 3 categories…doctrine, practice and personal interpretations. The trick is to agree on what fits into these categories that NEVER change.If we say gospel teachings of love and service and taking care of the body are universal and unchanging throughout history, I can get in board with that, and I think it would describe 90% of the world religions.
If we suggest ordinances are doctrinal…I would disagree and put ordinances in the practice category of what we have in our day, which differ from prior periods, even early church history days under Joseph’s leadership.
Priesthood power and authority is probably another one that changes over time. Teachings of pre-mortal and post-mortal existence has also changed over time…so I guess those are not unchanging doctrines.
I agree and disagree (but isn’t that the point?
I think the practice of the ordinances is probably practice, but the making of covenants is probably doctrine (fitting things into the 3 categories mentioned). I think it makes sense that authority has to accompany the ordinance, in some form or another. As far as pre-mortal and post-mortal existence — well, there’s a truth there somewhere that is absolute, our understanding of it is going to change however, based on the “darkly” glass so often referenced.
Quote:If we say gospel teachings of love and service and taking care of the body and being responsible with procreative powers are doctrines that are universal and unchanging throughout history, I can get in board with that
I’d probably call those things “values” or “morals” other than doctrine.
Even those arguably aren’t unchanging. For example, love & service have definitely been confined to groups at least – e.g. the Jews “doctrine” did not include being loving of Samaritans or any other outsiders. That is a change from the Christian teaching that by loving our neighbor that means everyone.
Sometimes we conflate doctrine with principle. I believe principles can be eternal and absolute; I don’t believe doctrine is. All you newbies will learn pretty quickly that I’m the resident parser
:shh: – and one reason is that many of our communal problems arise, imo, by not understanding, by misusing and by conflating various words.Quote:Sometimes we conflate doctrine with principle. I believe principles can be eternal and absolute; I don’t believe doctrine is.
Yes principles was the word I was trying to find and couldn’t. I bow to your parsing.
Heber13 wrote:I still like the 3 categories…doctrine, practice and personal interpretations.
…If we suggest ordinances are doctrinal…I would disagree and put ordinances in the practice category of what we have in our day, which differ from prior periods, even early church history days under Joseph’s leadership…
Heber, now there you go again making sense. Cut it out.
The LDS concept of ordinances makes absolutely NO SENSE to me, at all. I know we try to make it fit into the doctrine with temple work and such, but when you run the math, it just doesn’t add up, at all. Also, I think it is quite insulting, to the gods, to tell them who will and will not make it to “heaven” based on a bunch of baptism and temple records. The gods are going to do what they are going to do….and I don’t think they are going to be checking LDS official documents when you pass through the door.
Quote:The gods are going to do what they are going to do….and I don’t think they are going to be checking LDS official documents when you pass through the door.
Are you implying they will be too busy doing secret handshakes to see who knows enough to get in to look at the paperwork?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.