Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes, Ray I agree that leadership can be good or bad. And good leaders sometimes turn bad. The Lord warned JS about that in D&C 121.
Quote:39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.
I have experienced both kinds, and when my experience with a particular leader was less than positive, I simply tried to avoid him. And when the whole Church appeared that way to me, I, for my own sanity, went AWOL for a number of years. But now that I’ve been able to come back, I can more easily let any negative pass without getting entangled in it, as I work to find more positive experiences with members exhibiting righteousness and spirituality.I so enjoyed the conversation Brian started on Mormon Matters. I wish the comments weren’t cut off there, but I perhaps we can discuss an important question that I was brought up there. N. said:
Quote:There has to be official Mormon doctrine. There has to be something common that brings people together in the religion
So what is that common ground, particularly if Official Doctrine is limited and abstract? I recently read an article quoting Richard Bushman which IMO answers this question at least partially.
Looking at the long history of the Church, there is any number of challenges that could very well have killed Mormonism for good. It’s improbable that the Church has survived and even thrived as it has
Satan’s attack on JS in the first vision.
Frequent mob attacks of JS, including attempting to shoot him
Mormons expelled from 3 states (once with an extermination order from the governor) Flight to a desert wasteland resulting deaths and injuries to thousands, hoping for a sanctuary.
Hounded by Johnson’s army in Utah
Vilification by the national press
Federal take-over of virtually all church property including threats to take over the temples
Teetering on bankrupcy
Challenges of Utah to statehood, (Abraham Smoot denied a seat in the U.S. Senate for 4 years)
Great Depression with 1/3 of Mormons unemployed
Divisive political issues like womens’ rights, blacks & the priesthood, intellectual freedom
Attacks from Evangelicals having “kanipchin fits” over legitimacy of Mormon beliefs.
Richard Bushman says
Quote:“How can we account for the success of this lay-led Church, which seems to run against all expectations?” He answers by saying that its genius can be largely explained in the fact that the expectation of divine revelation has been built into the very administrative structure and offices of the Church, an expectation attributable to the Prophet himself.
“Latter-day Saints know in their bones that only leadership based on righteousness and spirituality will work,” Brother Bushman said, every new office holder knows it, and that, in itself, provides a check on the abuse of power within the Church.
http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/58903/Symposium-deals-with-the-institution-of-the-Church.html I think the depth of conviction many members hold about righteous leaders receiving revelation in leading the Church is common ground that powerfully holds members together. Whether liberal or conservative, most active Mormons, especially when they have experienced spiritual confirmations themselves, feel unusually loyal to the leaders who they believe can receive spiritual guidance in their church callings.
I recall the author of the PBS special “The Mormons” a couple of years ago commenting that even though the program ran 6 hours (or more) still had much more info she could report. When asked what one other single subject she would like to add if she could, she replied that it was the strength of conviction exemplified by many members that really amazed her. I certainly do not share the conviction of most TBM’s but nevertheless I feel the expectation that the leadership is based on righteousness and spirituality. It doesn’t always work the way I think it should, but it seems to work more often than not. That’s more than I can see in other parts of life.
What do other people think?
Quote:Most people here do not like having their door knocked upon, it annoys them.
Perhaps the Church has been listening to us. Just last Wednesday, July 15 announced a total revamp of
http://www.mormon.org . It gives wide space to blogs by volunteer member’s blogs about why they believe, and make themselves available to questions from anyone who wants to ask. The investigator can specify age, gender, & ethnicity they want, and be guided to members meeting those descriptions. Here, the investigator is initiating the discussion, and the members responses escape the %$#@~!&* church Co-correlation committee editors! I’m sure “inappropriate” responses will be deleted, but at least the responses can’t be scripted.http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/49942960-76/church-missionaries-online-lds.html.csp 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. .
I think readers of this thread may want to check out the Eyring-L site. I just did and found some essays there that might be interesting. IMO, the site doesn’t particularly look well laid out so you may have to dig a bit to find what your looking for, but here are some of the topics in one section. Look around and you can find other stuff that might be good. 1. What is the Church’s position on Evolution?
2. What is the Church’s position on Science and Progress?
3. What is the Church’s position on various medical practices?
4. Is there any scientific evidence for the Book of Mormon?
5. What is the Church’s position on parapsychology?
6. Archive of eyring-l discussions on the weight of spirits
Thank you Mormonheretic, Euhemerus and Orson for your suggestions. I found all three helpful. I also found a link that does an excellent historical view of teachings on creationism vs evolution debate. I don’t remember if it was on this thread or elsewhere, but it should be of interest to readers of this thread. The essay was first published in Dialogue, is by Duane Jeffry, and is entitled “Seers, Savants and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface” It does a great job of defining the issues of evolution vs creationism, looking at the historical context of the Mormon “discussions”, and traces the history of those discussion to our present time. It is well written and documented, basically says that the Church has a long history of having either diverse opinions and more recently, officially no opinion. It is found at
http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/Jeffery-SSE.html It is long: 30 pages + footnotes. I hope others find it as interesting as I did. (But as far as my lesson goes, I’ve got some good info here and elsewhere, so I probably will read no more than 1 paragraph from it.)
Quote:Henry Eyring was pointing out to Joseph Fielding Smith that the earth is 4 billion years over 50 years ago.
Sorry, this comment is only tangentially related to the topic of Official Doctrine. I’m not trying to derail the discussion. I am teaching a lesson on the Creation in HP Quorum Sunday. Euhemerus, do you have the reference for that quote, or reference for other good material that indicates Creationism IS NOT Mormon Doctrine. I’ve got a couple guys in the class who are very intelligent, but sometimes ill informed. I suspect this may be a new concept for them, and I would like to be ready. Can you or anyone else make some suggestionsQuote:I stopped requiring “The Church” to change long ago and focused on changing “my church” wherever I lived – not in some judgmental way, but simply by trying to be the person others need. There’s a HUGE difference between insisting that others change and focusing on changing yourself.
One way to do that is to let go of “Official Mormon Doctrine” to every extent possible.
Bingo!!! Another way of changing “my church” is through taking personal responsibility for all beliefs and actions. I use Official Doctrine to counter the heavy hand of authority others may try to lay on me, whether it’s an overzealous member, or an anti-Mormon lecturing me on what I believe. If an anti-quotes some weird BY statement from the Journal of Discourses, I just respond “not Official Doctrine”. When my church leader quoted the manual intro saying I “should” used only the manual material, I quoted the higher authority of the Scriptures counseling us to use the “best books”. For me, quoting scripture to establish or defend my freedom to choose is a kind of “malicious obedience.”
Quote:D&C 88:118, 77-78
118 Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith…..
78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;
79 Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—
I agree with Euhemerus that defining the Standard Works as Official Doctrine can be very useful for someone struggling with their faith. Whether that definition is narrow or broad, pretty much depends on the reader. A stage 3 could get very legalistic about it, much the way Evangels get about the Bible and inerrancy, while a stage 5 could be following the spirit of the message with little concern for the letter. And both groups could both use selected quotes from the FP and Q12 to confirm their positions. It seems to me that we are free to make up our own version of reality. But we had better be careful because what we wish for hear we may well get in the hereafter. As I said in the essay: Quote:This should not be thought of as a cafeteria plan of salvation. While we are free to choose what commandments we obey, we are not free to escape the natural consequences.
There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated. And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. ( D&C 130:20 )
Further, I personally believe that when we truly seek the counsel of the Lord, we individually can know God’s will in our life (after reading the scriptures, and listening to the council of the Brethren.) Our answer may be much different than his will for our neighbor, so while it’s narrow in proscription for each individual, it is customized for each individual and hence may demonstrate great variability among individuals. Is that a narrow or wide interpretation of God’s will and/or Official Doctrine? I believe it can be viewed as either one equally well.
Euhemerus, you made two references to a term I am unclear about the meaning of. Quote:I usually find any one school of thought usually lacking in being able to properly describe reality
and
Quote:the reality of Mormonism in which we live.
. Are you indicating that reality is a constant never changing thing. I do not have the thought patterns of an engineer. I have the mind set of a reasonably creative public school teacher. I have attended TBM wards on the bench in SLC , emigrant branches in the inner city that had to have translations in 3 or 4 languages, and am a member of a suburban branch that has more converts than lifers. In all these places they may have been on the same lesson in a building with the same floor plan, but the reality of Mormonism was very different if I understand the term correctly.
Could you clarify the term “reality of Mormonism”
The essay is written primarily for those suffering a crisis of faith or those who know someone who is. Those who are in Fowlers stage 2 or 3 would not see the benefit. But those most likely will find value in this information are struggling in state 4, particularly if their challenges come from perceived inconsistencies in church doctrine, history, or science/religion. The genesis of this essay grew out of my experience talking with critics of the Church, who loved to quote GA’s, especially JS, BY, PPP. Also books that give some people fits are “Mormon Doctrine”, by Bruce R McConkie, quotes from Journal of Discourses, and more recently some people are struggling with “Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling” The critics talk as if we believe GA’s are infallible (that’s not our doctrine, but many Mormons still believe it). They also claim we change our doctrine dramatically over time, but the essay shows that outside the 7 exceptions only unofficial doctrine changes.
How does it help you? What question does it answer for you? What puzzle does it solve for you?It was a great eye opener to learn the formal procedure for changing doctrine, and that it has only happened 7 times, and all for some very substantial reasons. It helped me understand that the parts of Mormondom that drive me crazy was not a part of that. For example, I can now deal easily with the ward teaching message saying “if the Brethren have spoken the thinking has been done.” Another example is McConkie’s take on the Great and Abominable Church. For me, the biggest value is that it helps put in balance paradox two big principles of the gospel, obedience vs free agency.
What does Official Doctrine matter when I am sitting in a temple recommend interview?It gives me the confidence to answer the questions without having to get the interviewer’s agreement, short of a serious digression. I answer Yes, No, Earnestly Trying as truthfully as I can, and leave it at that. The recommend requires 3 signatures and I have the biggest part of the responsibility in any judgment calls.
What does Official Doctrine matter when I am in Sunday School class?It provides me a great B.S. detector. Entirely to often teacher’s pass off second and third generation teachings as Gospel. A couple weeks ago in a discussion of the Creation, the teacher paraphrased a lesson he remembered reading for an institute class several years ago as solid evidence the earth was created in 6-24 hour periods. Although Genesis says that, the GA’s have made it abundantly clear that there is no official stand on the subject. I had a discussion with my Bishop a couple years ago who suggested that I should stick closely to the manual. He then quoted me from the manual that directive. I told him that as I read the scriptures, they counseled otherwise:
D&C 88:118.
Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”
D&C 88:78-80
78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;
79 Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—
Moroni 7:19
Search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.
What does Official Doctrine matter when I am trying to teach a class?I am very conscious of the fact the SS manuals are written by well meaning, but fallible people. The manual is an official publication, and I try to follow it as much as I can. But my biggest responsibility is to the needs of my students. I feel I have failed if I haven’t either informed, motivated or inspired the students. As a result, I supplement the lesson with outside materials, preferably from the Standard Works, then GA’s, then other sources in that order. I feel free to even quote non-Mormon sources if the quote is particularly good, but never as a justification for my point. But I will share nothing that I believe is not in harmony with the Scriptures.
At that point, he changed the subject.
Let me give you an example of how I use Official Doctrine. I taught a High Priest lesson recently on Fatherhood, based on conference addresses. The talks were imo rather routine stuff that the HP have heard a million times. So I introduced the lesson by playing a taped interview with Anton Ohno just after winning his 8th Gold Medal at the Olympics. He told how his Dad had helped him, how his father was his best friend, his coach, his trainer, and how he talks to him 2-3 times every day. It was quite moving. We discussed what principles he demonstrated that we can learn from, then we discussed several points from the lesson. I closed by referring to the lesson that suggested they consider their relationship not just with their earthly father, but with their Heavenly Father as well. Then I passed out the lyrics to “Oh My Father” for them to follow along, as I played the Tab Choir singing the hymn. One of my most true blue TBM, said it was the best lesson he had heard on the subject. Others also commented how they were moved.
What does Official Doctrine matter when I am in tithing settlement?The scriptures say 10%. GA’s generally advise that there is a difference between gross and net, but it is left to the individual how he interprets that. For example, a business subtracts out taxes before arriving at net. Is the individual justified in doing the same thing? Everyone must decide for themselves.
Quote:Tom Haws
I do have a concern that this approach of defining Official LDS Doctrine has the result of building such a small box as to be functionally meaningless… I think the narrowness might not be bad. But for some reason it seems to miss the mark (for me). I may just need some guidance.
When I explain core LDS-ness to others, there is a single word that successfully captures it: Authority. That one word explains all that is different about our current religion (or our current institutional and cultural incarnation of Mormonism). In other words, core LDS doctrine is that there was a Great Apostasy ended by a great, glorious, and final Restoration of power, keys, and authority that reside now in the Quorum of the Twelve. All other considerations hang on that, in practical terms. For me, I have to ask, does our explanation of Official Doctrine elucidate that or obfuscate it?
I don’t have clarity on this matter. I don’t perceive clarity from the new article. I may lack perception and capability. But I don’t think it would hurt to explore this for a bit with the possible end of improving the article.
Yes, Tom, the definition the Brethren have given and practiced for 180 years appears narrow. (Pardon me for pulling authority card, but this is the Brethrens’ definition, not mine.) The Standard Works are a very small percentage of all millions of pages of text the Church has published over the years. But the beauty of the scriptures is that they are the foundation for all LDS doctrine, teaching and practices. D&C & BofM are good at discussing the apostasy, Priesthood restoration, and Church government including the role of the Quorum of the Twelve. The conference addresses, official statements, official publications, etc. give substance and clarification to the Standard Works, and many, many other important subjects, but they are all consistent with the scriptures.
I hope that helps
BTW
It is not unusual for churches to have narrowly defined Official Doctrine. Catholic churches hold two standards: the Bible and tradition. Starting in 1517, Martin Luther rejected Catholic tradition, and focused exclusively on the Bible as the only source of divinely revealed knowledge. This view is held by most Protestants ever since.
In the late 1800’s, some Protestant ministers adopted the notion of Biblical inerrancy and sufficiency. They believed the Bible contains no errors, and it contains everything necessary for salvation. Today these churches fall under the Fundamentalist / Evangelical umbrella.
So the Mormon effort to limit Official Doctrine to canonized scriptures is has ample precedence in both Catholic and Protestant Christianity.
Welcome to our forum. You may want to check out the thread on Official Doctrine under the “History and Doctrine Discussions” section. There is no set of dogma which you must accept. And I believe there is a lot more flexibility than is commonly assumed in what we do believe. At any rate, feel welcome to express your feelings here. Quote:I am sure that I will continue to hide my true thoughts around people in person about my questions regarding faith, but it will be nice to add to the conversation here even if I only ever do so anonymously.
Please feel free to express your thoughts as honestly as you like. This forum is an excellent place where you don’t have to justify yourself, or be fearful that you might be wrong. (There are no right or wrong answers.) But whether we are in the Church looking out or outside looking in, we are all trying to find the best alternatives (for us individually) for ways of more positively relating to the LDS community
Quote:I think it’s a bit disingenuous to ignore the obvious elephant in the room of traditional doctrine and culture in the church. I think we need a more encompassing definition of doctrine in Mormonism to really get a feel for how things are in our culture.
Euhemerus, I agree with you that it is important for any member or anyone who wants to understand Mormonism to understand its “traditional doctrine and culture”. I taught Gospel Principles class for two years and every Sunday would share with them something about our history, culture, current events, social and religious events, etc. so they could understand how becoming a member is a change how one lives his life, not just an adoption of a few abstract doctrines that have little effect in life.
But in this essay I am not addressing “traditional doctrine and culture”, Official Mormon Doctrine is an entirely different subject. The definition articulated by Apostles B.H. Roberts, George Q. Cannon, LDS.org is very precise for a specific purpose: to be “binding upon us as a people and as a Church”. All else is not quite so binding.
Compare Official Doctrine to the Constitution of the United States. The government has a mired of laws, rules, and publications. But all those must be in harmony with the Constitution or it risks being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Likewise, that is the same role the Standard Works is for us. I also believe it is why the Church frequently encourages us to bring our scriptures to Church, to serve as a reminder of their primacy canonized scriptures. Anything found inconsistent with the Standard Works runs the risk of being declared un-doctrinal. We just don’t have a Church Supreme court to enforce it. As Joseph Smith said, we are taught “correct principles and …govern ourselves”.
But make no mistake about it, there are other many important Official Laws which both citizens and saints must obey.
Citizen
Don’t pay your taxes, and you will be fined and possibly imprisoned.
Yell fire in a crowded theater and you will likely land in jail.
Smuggle an illegal alien across the boarder and you will be hauled off to prison.
Saint
Drink and smoke and you won’t get a temple recommend.
Publicly teach Darwinism and or be disfellowshiped or excommunicated.
Join the Klu Klux Klan, and you risk censure or worse.
In the above examples, important principles and laws (commandments) are involved that the citizen and saint must be obedient to, but they are not in the Constitution or the Standard Works. Those 2 documents are in a special class that all other laws and teachings must be measured. Also, they can only be modified by a very formal, proscribed method.
The Constitution can only be amended by approval of 2/3 of both Houses of Congress and by the Legislatures of ¾ of the States. It happens rarely (27 times since 1789), and seldom do leaders talk about the procedure. Nevertheless, the Constitution has primacy over any other law.
The Standard Works must be approved by consent of the First Presidency, the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and accepted as “binding upon us as a people and as a Church. It has happened only 7 times since 1830.
This distinction isn’t just academic; it has a very important practical benefit of understanding that teaching, statements and strongly held beliefs can and do change, without the Official Doctrine being changed. Otherwise people can misinterpret a change in teaching as a change in Official Doctrine.
For example, many people’s faith was challenged when the Church announced it no longer believed that Lamanites are the primary ancestors of Native Americans. Even though many GA’s taught it, many Official Publications stated it, and many Official Church Programs acted on it for nearly 100 years, it was not a change to Official Doctrine. The reason is that there was nothing in the original text of the BofM stating it. (The intro to the BofM, where the changed text resides, is not part of the text revealed to Joseph Smith; it was added later by the Church by way of introduction, but not as revelation.)
This is important because anti-Mormons take glee in picking out beliefs like this, and claiming the change is evidence that the Mormon prophets are frauds. The narrow definition of Official Doctrine as practiced by the Church, can inoculate members against such allegations, so no one’s faith needs to be threatened.
There is real safety of the Church restricting Official Doctrine which is “binding upon us as a people and as a Church” to only that which is formally approved by the FP, Q12, and the membership. There are many other doctrines and cultural beliefs that similarly can be cleared up by understanding what is and is not Official Doctrine: Blood Atonement, great and abominable church, belief that dark skin is a curse, infallibility of prophets, Book of Mormon setting in New England or Meso-America, or….
I also agree with you that the scriptures can be interpreted many different ways. That’s why there are approximately 2000 Christian denominations all saying they each have the proper reading of the Bible. Moreover, by one count there are 70 churches spin-offs from the LDS church. As imperfect as the process is, it’s the roll of the Prophets and Apostles to testify of Christ and teach of his gospel as contained in the scriptures. They have forged a remarkable consensus on interpreting the scriptures among 14 million members in 160 different countries. The have done that by effectively utilizing
· Official talks and statements
· Official publications
· Official policy and procedure
· Books by General Authorities
So these other sources of doctrine and culture are important in interpreting and fleshing out the Mormon experience. I do not quibble for one moment their very important and necessary roles.
I also believe that not understanding what Official Doctrine is, leads many people to question their faith for no good reason. The narrow definition helps people understand that any anomalies in official talks, statements, publications, policy and procedure is not a change in anything fundamental, and hence not a challenge to their belief system. A broader definition, however, opens up a can of worms that gives many members much grief and anti-Mormons love to attack.
