Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Euhemerus, Quote:“I only recently have shifted away from this type of activity (within the last 6 months), and have focused more on trying to make myself a better person. My focus switched from the church/group I’m in, toward a more introspective look at myself. This may or may not be a better approach, but it seems to be working for me. Good luck!”
I totally agree with what you are saying. I believe this should be the most important part of religious life. I guess where I am coming from is I am having a really hard time see how going to church does anything to help in becoming a better person. There was a time when it really acted against me becoming a better person. I do not believe that this is the case now, but I still struggle with the utility of activity. It sounds like you have figured it out at least for yourself. Can you share?
Euhemerus, Thank you for all your post, and your last one in particular. I must admit it’s usefulness is limited. After many years utilizing Don’s definition or something similar some times it seems to be limited to banging my head against a brick wall of cultural beliefs.
When Don says it can be used for a BS detector I have been doing this since before my mission and it gets tiresome when it seems that a good 70% of what I heard in church was BS. For many years I enjoyed gospels principals much more than gospel doctrine because the % BS was lower. When I starting viewing much of what I heard in General conference as BS it got more difficult to enjoy church at all. When I started see the BS as being destructive to some groups of members it made me nothing but angry for a long time. I am beyond the anger, but I really struggle with what use is church when they spend most of the time talking about selections that I do not agree or can rebut without causing a seen, or so narrowly selected portions of our history that it loses all usefulness.
I find it interesting that near death experiences seem to confirm the religious traditions that the near dead come from. I have heard may LDS near death experiences that sound very comforting. I have hear Christian near death experiences that do not contradict the LDS ones yet are not as specific in the LDS details. As you get away from Christians near death experiences tend to include preparation for reincarnation. I think I have made it pretty clear that I agree with Don on this definition, but I would suspect that few members would agree with us. I have had many many arguments using this contention. Usually I am arguing that there is no doctrinal bases for the church’s policy on homosexuality and the church’s political actions on gay marriage. Without getting into the specifics of my arguments, in response they constantly refer to the Prop 8 letter, and a quote from a GA in the 70’s claiming that these are examples of doctrine. I believe that the GA’s have offered this definition of doctrine, but are not loud about broadcasting it. I believe that they know that the more broad idea that most of the member some how hold in their minds fosters a greater obedience. I think a pretty large percentage of the church believes that all the prophet have seen Christ himself, and have communion with him on a regular bases. This is not an idea the leaders have endorsed, but they certainly do not directly contradict it. If everyone kept fresh in there minds the narrow definition of doctrine that they have actually endorsed, and that the GA’s are men called and doing their best like the rest of us in our callings, would we be so conservative in our interpretations or so obedient in every particular? Would we be any different than any other Christian denomination?
I think going to church because you have to is the wrong reason. I do not believe not going is really going to hurt you. If you go because you want to, because you feel up lifted, or because it is fun to see your friends I think any of these reasons are great reasons to go to church. Likely there are more good reasons, but if you are making decisions because of guilt or fear I think it can really have a detrimental effect on you. One day I went to stake conference and I realized that most of my life I went to church because I “had to” or that is what I was suppose to do. I realized that I could walk out that day and never come back and be OK and not feel guilty or bad for it. I stayed. I continued to go every week for a long time. I now choose to work on Sunday, but I still choose to go when my schedule permits. I must admit I only go to see my friends. I do not go for any spiritual reason. I do feel I have a very spiritual life. I think probably one of the most spiritual times of my life, but sadly I do not get any of it from attendance at the LDS church. I also think that if you can make a choice that would give you more spiritual up lift go for it. Euhemerus, You are making great points, and yes we are talking past each other. Nice definition of doctrine. Yes I think it is a good useful accrete definition when discussing most religious institutions. I do think we look at doctrine slightly different as Mormons. Our whole concept of living oracles, yet retaining the idea of fallibility, calls out for some way to tease out what we can be sure on is from God and what could possibly be fallibility. For me I think I am looking for what can be questioned and still consider myself within the umbrella of a believing LDS. At this point I have days where I can accept within myself the idea that it is all hog wash and embrace the title apostate, but most of the time I am seeking to embrace the Mormonness that is such a deep part of me and I would like to see a line and be able to say yes I can buy all that I see as absolutely for sure is doctrine and feel free to question all else. This whole concept may be a silly game, but I believe this article was presented in this type of spirit. Helping those srtuggling to sort out who they are as Mormons. Therefore I stand by the definition the article put forth as legitimate and very useful within the LDS world or at least this corner of the LDS world, even though it may not withstand the strict academic standers of Wikipedia.
Euhemerus, “I think this is a fine interpretation for someone arguing the issue of polygamy from the point of view of the LDS church. Try telling a FLDS, or someone who lived during Brigham’s days that it wasn’t doctrinal. Sorry, but it just doesn’t add up. In retrospect we might well proclaim that it wasn’t doctrinal, but those people then, there were plenty of statements proclaiming its divine creed and doctrinal validity. Furthermore, it was entirely rooted in scripture.”
I agree with you. I was trying to say that the declaration 1 was not a change in doctrine it was a change in policy about the doctrine of polygamy, which I am saying has not changed.
“This flies in direct opposition to the basic platform of our church – continuing revelation. “
I admit that most Mormons would not agree, notably Elder Oaks for sure, but all the examples I can remember of new revelation has been adding to doctrine not really changing, with the possible exception of when Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, but I think fulfilling is different than actually changing. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Yes, new revelations may come but will they actually change truth, or will they give us more information than we previously had, or will they correct a policy put into place for the wrong reason like declaration 2.
“1. an anthropomorphic God
2. the nature of the Godhead”
I believe that this is your best point. I think these ideas are assumption based on scriptural the record. I do not believe this would be the first time GA’s have assumed things are doctrine based on how they have interpreted the scriptural record. A few examples are blacks and the priesthood, Adam God theory, advocating death to interracial couples.
“3. temple ceremonies”
The specifics of the temple ceremonies have changed a lot. I do think that the generalities are doctrine, most of which is in the scriptures.
I believe that Joseph being a Mason, and knowing the historical roots of the Masons, he worked to restore the temple ceremony. I don’t think this was a process of dictation. I think he worked on it and got a general idea.
Most of what I am talking about is how I am choosing to define the word doctrine. If you choose to define what I call “policy” “doctrine” I am not sure I can say your wrong, but what I am saying ist the articles definition is legitimate.
Looking in, Thanks for sharing. I don’t know the answer to any of things you are questioning.
“fear that I will not be placed in the highest degree”
One thing I have been asking lately is that really such a bad thing? When you compare this to other Christian theologies, if you make it out of outer darkness, which lets face it is not even a possibility for all but a handful of people, all the other options are at least as good as what any other Christian think of as heaven. Also, if there is at least some degree of freedom in the lower kingdoms what is going to stop us from hanging with our family. Were going to have reserected bodies. If we are in the same kingdom as our spouse, we may not be married, but why could we not live in sin for the eternities. Talk about spending your golden years together. In fact as far as I can figure out it seems that the biggest thing that would be missing from the lower kingdom besides even more indescribable conditions is a lot of responsibilities.
I am not trying to make light of your fears. I think we all have had them and will have them. This is just how my thought process goes. Welcome, and thanks for giving us a gimps of the beauty with in you.
I to enjoyed the article as well. Euhemerus,
I agree with the articles definition of doctrine. I think you could define it differently. It is a pretty complex proposal to define doctrine or theology in a church like ours. The things like the word of wisdom standards you are calling doctrine I would call church policy. The church has lots of policy and they can and do change. In my opinion I don’t see doctrine as really changing. You could argue this. Polygamy you could argue as a doctrine that changed. I would argue that the doctrine did not change, but the policy concerning polygamy changed. You can only practice polygamy when only up to one of your wives is living. We have not changed anything in the scriptures concerning the doctrine. Blacks and the priesthood could be argued as a doctrinal change. You could get many people and leaders to agree with you. I would argue that there was nothing scriptural or revelatory linking this policy ever canonized so it was policy not doctrine.
“The leaders in our church, currently, take the approach of ignoring that which isn’t the primary focus.”
This may be true, but I see the leaders as more prone to slowly change their stand and never actually address the statements that no longer fit with what they are saying now. I see this as a problem.
Example: homosexuality. In the 70’s the church funding shock treatments at BYU. Pres. Kimble said that it was the most pernicious of sins, and it is caused by masturbation. We had conference talks saying that homosexuality was caused by selfishness and that you can treat the selfishness.
Yet today the first presidency will never say it is treatable. In fact they say that the feelings of homosexuality are not sins, and they do not know if homosexuality is biological. Yet we have church members continuing to quote the statements that are completely in contradiction with what the leadership is saying today and the church seems to pretend that the contradictions simply are not there.
Ray, “The thing I love MOST about Mormonism’s cosmic view is that God is described as the ultimate best we can ever hope to become”
Bravo!!
It is a great article.
My personal god most of my life has been very LDS. I see the LDS view I think is very interesting. The pagans had a dualistic Gods pared Gods and Goddesses. Creation took male and female. Than the God of Abraham changed all that. A male God that could create with his word no need for a woman. I find Joseph Smith’s idea of a strange combination of these two ideas. Creation took a male and female again, but the woman keeps her mouth shut. I pray to a god that is male and female. I came to a point in my life that I needed to create a God that was not patriarchal. I could no longer pray to a heavenly father with out also praying to a mother in heaven.
Just Me, I love everything you have said. I do agree that how we see God is more about where we are than whether we are right or wrong.
When I look at history I do not see man creating God in their own image necessarily. Although that does happen, but I think man creates God in the image they need. Yaheh was originally a volcano God only present on Mount Sinai. When the Jews combined with other tribes in Israel Yaheh was a God centered in the temple and was the most powerful of all the Gods the tribes had in the same place. “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me” Even in Salomon’s day there were other Gods in the temple. The Jews did not need a monotheistic God or an omnipresent or an All knowing God until the Babylonian captivity. They need a God that was not stuck in the temple that was with them everywhere. These ideas fit what was needed until Paul. Paul needed a God he could sell to the pagans. He created a personal God. This is my idea of what I read in history.
I can get bugged by listening to GA’s on any day of the year. Not always. I can see how this is not the way you would choose to spend your easter. The GA’s will likely do what they want and not explain why. I think you could just start thinking about how you want to spend easter and do that. Does it really matter how the GA’s spend their easter, can’t you make it the day you want regardless of what any one else is doing?
