[epiginosko]

Policies based on doctrine = Doctrinal. Okay, I can accept that definition. However, if the GA’s want to tout the CHI as “Official Doctrine” (which I don’t think they are), then they need to canonize the CHI into our Standard Works. Otherwise, it simply remains policy and an interpretation of the laws.

[epiginosko]

That’s great! We need more Christ-like love like that.

I look at it the same way I look at my relationship with my own children. Whatever they decide to do with their lives, they will have my full love and support. And I have to imagine that if there is a Father in Heaven, He would feel very much the same way about us.

[epiginosko]

I have had two personal experiences with casting out supposed evil spirits using priesthood authority. I don’t know how much of it was psychological vs. real, but I can say that in both cases the people were terrified and had thoughts of harming themselves and others. Again, it’s difficult for me to tell how much of this was real, as I do know that both of these people suffered from depression. But I did what was requested of me and the “possessions” seemed to end. Outside of that, I’ve never had any personal experiences beyond general creepiness.

[epiginosko]

In every religion, there is a seeking of a “higher” religious experience. Whether it be Islam and Mecca, Judaism and the Temple at Jerusalem, Pilgrimages to Holy sites such as the Vatican, or the Temples of Buddhism, Hinduism. The desire to set aside a “sacred” building or structure to create a sort of portal between “heaven” and earth, as a place to commune with the Divine in an unobstructed manner, as a place to realize your “full self,” has been mankind’s quest for as long as we’ve recored history.

In Mormonism, Temple worship is part of our religious experience. I accept that. Even if the language and rituals are so obviously derived from Joseph’s Masonic experience, the ideas that the dead can be redeemed, that we can be exalted, and that we can live with our families for eternity, are not entirely unattractive.

Honestly, I rarely attend the Temple. In years the past, I went almost weekly. But I almost only go now when there is a specific reason (attending an endowment, sealing, on vacation somewhere and want to check out the temple, etc.). The option to go when important events arise is the reason I maintain a current Temple recommend.

[epiginosko]

Out of the same General Conference, we were also instructed that the Proclamation on the Family is scripture for our day (Packer). However, that statement was revised by the time it reached print (purportedly by Packer himself) to remove the “scriptural” claim of the Proclamation.

We have also been recently instructed that all of the doctrines of the Church are canonized within our Standard Works, and that there is not a doctrine which we stand absolute on which is not found within the OT, NT, BoM, D&C, or PoGP.

I guess the confusion comes down to three often interwoven terms: revelation, scripture, and doctrine.

Can we have revelation without it being scripture or doctrine? I would incline towards yes, otherwise it seems that whenever our Prophets or Apostles claimed revelation on a matter, we would be frequently re-canonizing our D&C. Which, interestingly enough, is the practice of the CoC Church. (not a criticism)

What is scripture? It’s a collection of histories, parables, allegories, anecdotes, lamentations, principles, worship, war stories, commandments, prophecies, etc. In short, it’s a record of people and their dealings with God. If you take the phrase “Thus Saith the Lord” from a purely Biblical context, that would imply it is either a commandment or a prophecy. However, there is much more to scripture than being just a list of commandments and prophecies. The records we have today, according to Mormon belief system, is the writings and talks of our General Authorities. In that sense, everything our church leadership declares publicly is scripturally recorded, although not necessarily canonized within the Standard Works.

Can a “revelation” spoken by a Prophet or Apostle be “scripture” without being doctrine? Again, I would say yes. A “revelation” can be a strong feeling, counsel, or an admonition, but that does not necessarily make it a commandment or a prophesy. And, in order for it to be incorporated as official Doctrine, it would need to be canonized within our Standard Works, according to our own definition.

[epiginosko]

Tom Haws wrote:

I just want to observe that NOM is a great community. But when we say TBM, BKP, and TSM, we are slowly erasing the difference between this community and NOM, imho. More practically speaking, we risk being less of a safe and welcoming place for our dear sisters and brothers who are staring for the first time into the dazzling uncertainty of a faith shift.

I understand the point you are making. I think I’ll try to start using the word “orthodox” to describe TBM. It’s more clear. After all, I’ve never actually met a Mormon who is truly blue. Smurfs, perhaps, but not Mormons.

[epiginosko]

This is actually one principle that I appreciated as a TBM, and can still appreciate in many respects. Looking at the Biblical pattern of who God chose to use and work with to accomplish His plan, “the learned” was rarely found among them so far as I can tell. Sometimes, it amazes me that we have such a rich and diverse theology when most of our leaders were trained “in the mission field” rather than purely academically.

However, I also know that we are fond of using this principle to support the prophetic authenticity of Joseph Smith – he was just a stupid kid who could barely read and write, so he MUST have been guided by revelation becuase that bumbling fool couldn’t even tie a knot on his own. Hogwash! I think the evidence has shown clearly that, while Joseph Smith may not have had much formal education, he was far from ignorant in matters of religion.

In comparison, our current leaders seem quite well-educated and accomplished – most of them through church educational institutions. Nevertheless, they do not seem to speak “prophetically” in terms of proclaiming revelation on behalf of God. It has been a very long time since an acting president of the church has declared “Thus saith the Lord…”

If today we had an under-educated and broke man with a shady past standing as the President of the Church making bold proclamations in the name of God, how would the church react? Would Fundamental 5 still resonate, or would it cause division?

[epiginosko]

doug wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

“The prophet will never lead the Church astray.”

This is true by definition. Next.

Good point!

[epiginosko]

Let’s not forget the exit clause that Brigham Young added to this little contract:

“The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty.”

So, if we ARE lead astray, it’s clearly our own fault?! :wtf:

I think when I go home tonight, I’m going to hug and kiss my beautiful children and tell them that I would never leave them as long as they do their chores every day. But, if I don’t come back from work someday – it will clearly be their fault. :thumbdown:

But, to try to put a positive spin on this, I think I’ll substitute “Prophet” for “Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

“The Gospel of Jesus Christ will never lead the Church astray.” – There, fixed it. :clap:

[epiginosko]

falcosp wrote:

If we could teach the general points of service, kindness, and love for mankind, if we truly accepted all worshipers as they come, it would be easier.

I have been in many ward councils where I felt all that was accomplished was gossip and slander with a scripture and a prayer thrown in for good measure.

While I don’t believe that Christ as preached in Christianity is our Savior, I do think we attribute to him many qualities worthy of emulation. If we focused more on those and less on living the “standards,” if we focused more on loving and less on “saving ordinances” I would feel more comfortable. But right now there is a torrent of anger, confusion, sadness, and loss in my heart that is making staying LDS a very hard thing. I hope it gets easier.

These are some great insights, and I feel the same way! Sometimes our community can be so caught up in the liturgy, the “works” that it seems we forget about the attributes of Christ. We constantly hear that we should be like the Savior, but the only teaching they use is “BE YE PERFECT” and we forget the rest of the sermon on the mount. And the irony is, the Greek word for “perfect” doesn’t mean exacting or precise, rather it means complete or whole (and you can find that right in the footnotes of our own KJV).

Let me ask you a question. How is your Bishop? Is he Christ-centered, or Church-centered? Is he a shepherd or an administrator? Is he a minister or a Pharisee?

The reason I ask is because I’ve been to some wards where the Spirit of compassion, love, and tolerance were present. And I’ve been to wards where legalism, judgmentalism, and ridged orthodoxy replaced the Spirit. And in both cases, I could see the attitudes reflected in the Bishop of the Ward. Not saying that all of the blame should be cast upon him, but the tone is certainly set by him.

There is some truth to the statement that it’s better to go to church not expecting to feel the Spirit, but to BRING the Spirit.

What I have learned is that Christianity is an internal, not external process. We can be Christians in any circumstance. Just look at Paul and the letters he wrote from the most vile circumstances imaginable, where sewage and human waste drained directly into his prison cell – yet, the letters he wrote to the Ephesians were some of the most spiritually profound and uplifting epistles that we have by him. God can use you in any circumstance you are in, including the Mormon church. :angel:

And, btw, some of the most Christ-like people I know can no longer say with certainty that they even believe in Christ as taught in the Bible. There is sacred humility in questioning. I myself struggle with the origins of Christianity and whether or not the historical Jesus is really what his followers taught about him. Sometimes, I look at the Gospel’s more as a proclamation of faith than history. But, I have hope. And I find peace in the message of Christ.

So, here’s my assignment to you – use every opportunity you can in church, whether it be a teaching or speaking assignment, an opening prayer, or in discussions, to promote the attributes of Christ which are missing in your Ward. You can’t get in trouble for preaching the message of Christ. His name is still in the title of our Church, even if we tend to forget that sometimes.

[epiginosko]

I’ve had to re-frame my thoughts around prayers, blessings, and personal revelations.

My ex-wife was very “revelation” prone. Nearly every major decision was accompanied by some sort of revelation and what she felt was the word of God. She would write these “conversations with God” down in her journal and refer to them almost as scripture. When she met me, she showed me how a year prior she received a revelation that the man she would marry would have been raised in the church but would be inactive, but searching. Sure enough, that was the case. And I re-activated shortly after our relationship became serious.

Ten years later, she fell in love with a different man and asked for a divorce. This man was never LDS. He was raised Lutheran and wasn’t very active, but was searching. So, what did she do? Re-interpreted her “revelation” and traded the words “the church” for “a church.” Very nice. 🙄

I try to be careful about presuming to know or understand the “will of God.” One practice that I appreciate within Mormonism is the pattern we are taught of figuring it out for your own darn self, then take it to God. I have received what I feel are very profound promptings. One of which I am dealing with right now is a big decision I have to make which has three possible outcomes – all of which will hurt people who I love.

But mostly, I try to stay away from making any “prophetic” proclamations. Instead, I try to turn it over to the Lord. Ask for His blessing and His will to be done, and I expect that sometimes it’s not going to work out the way I had hoped or envisioned. Disappointment is a part of life.

My kids constantly hound me for new toys. Every time they see a commercial on TV advertising a toy, they say “I want that for Christmas!” or “I want that for my Birthday!” And then, when their birthday comes and they don’t get what they wished for, I can see the look of disappointment in their eyes. Is it because I don’t love them or want them to be happy? No. Not at all. It’s because I see a bigger picture: they need to learn how to be happy and appreciate with what they are given. And that ultimately, learning how to cope with dissapointment and be content will be an important tool as they navigate adulthood.

[epiginosko]

Hi Falcosp,

I just joined this community today as well. Here’s what I can say, for what it’s worth…

Because a very natural human desire is to be part of a community, and religion/faith fills a deep emotional need. That said, there is probably no such thing as a “perfect” church or religious organization. There may be some communities which are a better fit than others depending on your worldview, but none of them will be perfect – and it won’t take long before those flaws start to become apparent.

If it’s “perfection” we are after, we will ALWAYS be let down. Instead, I try to look at it from what is good and valuable to me and my family.

– Have you had positive experiences within the LDS church?

– Do you feel that activity in the LDS church is beneficial to your family?

– Do you value the relationships you have within the LDS church?

If the answer to these is “yes,” then why does there have to be more than that? Why is it important whether it’s any more or less “true” than any other church?

If the answer is “no,” then perhaps it’s time for some soul searching and candid discussions with your spouse about where the church is failing to meet these needs.

[Author]

Posts