- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
bc_pg wrote: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? 
Ha! Nice.
Quote: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.
I agree with you about the sums… but I consider it to be a form of service to the people we come from, our families. We’ll get stuff wrong inevitably, but the fact we remember them and do something for them is positive, I believe. All the funny stuff… sealings before sealings, sealings before endowments, endowments before baptisms etc will be sorted out if it’s real.
And I’ve also mentioned on this forum sealings that should happen but don’t, because the couple weren’t married (often because of war, misunderstanding etc)
SamBee wrote:
I agree with you about the sums… but I consider it to be a form of service to the people we come from, our families….Yes, absolutely it is. But I think the “doctrine” that all men must be baptized and married and sealed by a Mormon with the priesthood in an earthly temple, is insane, and extremely arrogant.
cwald wrote:SamBee wrote:
I agree with you about the sums… but I consider it to be a form of service to the people we come from, our families….Yes, absolutely it is. But I think the “doctrine” that all men must be baptized and married and sealed by a Mormon with the priesthood is insane and extremely arrogant.
Well, it meant a lot to me to do work for my uncles, aunts, grand-parents, parents etc… I think further back, it becomes less meaningful…
I do find endowment by proxy a bizarre concept, and less meaningful than baptism by proxy. I’d say the baptismal font in our local temple is the nicest room in there, although I do like the celestial room too (though see a thread I’ve just posted)
SamBee wrote:cwald wrote:SamBee wrote:
I agree with you about the sums… but I consider it to be a form of service to the people we come from, our families….Yes, absolutely it is. But I think the “doctrine” that all men must be baptized and married and sealed by a Mormon with the priesthood is insane and extremely arrogant.
Well, it meant a lot to me to do work for my uncles, aunts, grand-parents, parents etc… I think further back, it becomes less meaningful…
I do find endowment by proxy a bizarre concept, and less meaningful than baptism by proxy. I’d say the baptismal font in our local temple is the nicest room in there, although I do like the celestial room too (though see a thread I’ve just posted)
Yeah, I agree Kong, that the concept of temple work for our dead, is a good one. I like it. I understand it.
I just don’t like how the LDS doctrine has evolved over time where now it’s a requirement to get into heaven.
Quote:
I just don’t like how the LDS doctrine has evolved over time where now it’s a requirement to get into heaven.Well, it can work both ways. I arranged for a distant early 19th century relative to have work done for her. Yet she appears in books about murderers! Was she right, was she wrong? I don’t know. In the end, I thought “who am I to judge?”. It may have been a very complicated matter, and mental illness may have been involved.
Not everyone with temple proxy work will get into heaven, IMHO, and those without it will either have it done or some get out clause. Some horrible people have had proxy work done. And their lives were the result of free agency.
SamBee wrote:Not everyone with temple proxy work will get into heaven, IMHO, and those without it will either have it done or some get out clause. …
Or it was just something Joseph Smith made up to teach the people of his time some correct principle and help them gain some spiritual insight?
cwald wrote:SamBee wrote:Not everyone with temple proxy work will get into heaven, IMHO, and those without it will either have it done or some get out clause. …
Or it was just something Joseph Smith made up to teach the people of his time some correct principle and help them gain some spiritual insight?
I think a bit of both… the truth is somewhere in between. But doing it thousands of times won’t necessarily bring any more inspiration than doing it dozens of times, IMHO.
I find myself watching the twitches of P, J & J, A&E (and L of course) and admiring E’s looks as much as the deep doctrine when I watch the film.
cwald wrote:Heber, now there you go again making sense. Cut it out.
Sorry…that usually happens by chance, I can’t help it or control when it does or doesn’t happen
cwald wrote:
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.
But is it really doctrine? This goes back to the point of the original post…what many believe is doctrine may not really be. So maybe it is ok if doesn’t make sense to you or to me, cwald, because we arent required to accept it. It doesn’t explicitly state in canonized sources that i can find that these ordinances are required to enter the Celestial Kingdom. The closest is in the NT when Christ teaches a man must be born of water and spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven…but that has led to so many different personal interpretations, many perpetuated at church enough that my bishop and I have had some long talks about these subjects, without being able to agree on it. But just because he is my bishop who I sustain, and he is saying it is doctrine, doesn’t make it doctrine.So, I really think a BIG part of this conundrum we find ourselves in about determining doctrine is the conflations and misunderstandings of truth. Ray said it really well, and this is where his parsing is so valuable to an increased understandings of things taught to us. I completely agree that principles don’t change and can be universal truths, but our understanding and application of them differs, and our personal interpretations vary making talking about them somewhat difficult (and fun!).
So in summary, I believe principles don’t change, and Mormons dont have the monopoly on understanding or practicing true principles. Doctrines and ordinances do change, and Mormons have prophets to help establish the Mormon standard for practicing them, even if those arent the one and only way “the gods” (I prefer to refer directly to Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, but understand this concept was discussed in this thread, so I use that term to mean the same thing) judge the hearts of mortals. And, of course, personal interpretations vary widely, but some are not supported openly at church, especially when they conflict with traditional beliefs held by the majority of the group. It doesn’t make those personal interpretations or traditions right or wrong, just problematic in some circles, less so in other circles (but have little to do with real doctrine or true principles).
Doctrine, therefore, is widely misunderstood and misused in Mormon culture, in my experience.
Having said all that, I don’t need to wait for me or others to properly understand or agree on doctrine in order to practice my faith, or find reward in my view of doctrines. I can attend the temple, serve in callings, and practice loving others, especially those that disagree with my views. I can love, serve, be long-suffering and humble (to get back to the true unchanging principles). There is enough in the church to help me learn and grow, despite imperfections and my struggles to understand the historical changing doctrines this church teaches, and the misunderstandings of it by myself and my brothers and sisters I worship with.
Why do we place such an emphasis on doctrine? Why is it important, whether or not it changes? Quote:Why do we place such an emphasis on doctrine? Why is it important, whether or not it changes?
Because it’s what makes a religion. Like the ingredients in a soup. Veer off it too much and you end up with something different. It’s just a matter of working out what should and shouldn’t go in the soup.
Heber13 wrote:Why do we place such an emphasis on doctrine? Why is it important, whether or not it changes?
Because it is what members use to judge themselves, nonmembers, and especially us “apostates.”
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
in reality, i absolutely don’t know or care what ‘doctrine’ is. there are things currently taught by the church.
– some of which are provably true — I embrace these things. this is doctrine to me.
– some are proven false or highly unlikely but are benign — i reject these things but don’t let them bother me.
– some are proven false and are harmful — i reject and openly oppose these things.
– some of which are unproven or unprovable — i suspend judgment. this is speculation to me.
Bertrand Russell said as much about Christianity — except he found most of it to be bogus.
Jefferson, as well, but he didn’t openly oppose christianity, said he was christian in the sense of thinking Jesus’ teachings inspired and wisest of all.
bottom line for me: doctrine is the ‘truth’ being currently taught. the nontruth is not doctrine, and the unproven/unprovable is mere speculation.
cwald wrote:Heber13 wrote:Why do we place such an emphasis on doctrine? Why is it important, whether or not it changes?
Because it is what members use to judge themselves, nonmembers, and especially us “apostates.”
Well, that is one side of it. It also affects how we view the world and new challenges.
It seems the main beef with doctrine changing is caused by an attachment to the idea of doctrines or “the church” being eternal and never changing (perfect). God is eternal and never changes, so his church should be eternal and never changing. That’s the idea anyway. It’s a problem because we believe it’s a problem…
After letting go of that attachment to certainty and permanence, I think useful “doctrine” should NOT be permanent. It should change and adapt over time to fit better understand, better truths, and the nature of our constantly changing world.
I agree that the broader category of “principles” could be more permanent, perhaps even near-eternal. When will love and compassion go out of style? faith and action? dedication? service to others? Those are more dependable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.