In Retrospect, Was The Raising Of The Bar A Good Thing?

[MiserereNobis]

OK, but that still seems to go quite a bit beyond was Miserere Nobis was initially referring to with his reference to the King Follet sermon and his subsequent response to my request for clarification. I'm trying to nail down what it is specifically he is talking about before addressing his criticism that Mormons dodge and downplay their doctrine. I thought that if he were to consult the text of the King Follet discourse, he could clarify, in his own mind perhaps, what it actually states as opposed to what has been said about it over the years.

In hindsight, perhaps I shouldn't have used the King Follet sermon as the example, but simply stated the beliefs. Cobalt-70 has pointed out the beliefs that I am referencing and seems to agree that there has been a downplaying of them recently. Would you agree with his assessment?

[KevinG]

In hindsight, perhaps I shouldn't have used the King Follet sermon as the example, but simply stated the beliefs. Cobalt-70 has pointed out the beliefs that I am referencing and seems to agree that there has been a downplaying of them recently. Would you agree with his assessment?

We have had threads on this recently. My impression of some of the public statements by President Hinkley was that he was not about to get into a drawn out discussion of less clearly defined beliefs during an interview that would result in sound bite quotes. Pearls before reporters and all that.

As far as downplaying it we're devoting a lesson to that subject in next years Church curricula: See page 83 http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/36787_eng.pdf

[volgadon]

I find the term "Nauvoo theology" much too broad. For example, the bulk of the temple ordinances -- baptism for the dead, the endowment, sealings of spouses and children -- were not revealed until the Nauvoo period.

I would like our discussion to be as specific as possible so as to avoid misunderstanding, and I want to separate authoritative teaching from folklore. Do you object to that?

And the King Follet sermons is as good a source document as any.

We could take this to another thread so as not to derail this one, if you like.

Terryl Givens didn't give much credence at all to the theory of a "Nauvoo theology" when I heard him speak recently. He provided good reasons for his scepticism.

[Scott Lloyd]

In hindsight, perhaps I shouldn't have used the King Follet sermon as the example, but simply stated the beliefs. Cobalt-70 has pointed out the beliefs that I am referencing and seems to agree that there has been a downplaying of them recently. Would you agree with his assessment?

In response to his post, I've already stated that I don't. (I find myself in disagreement with Cobalt most of the time, in fact.)

Rather than viewing him as your spokesman, I would prefer to get your own comments on what doctrines specifically have been downplayed and whether they really were doctrines in the first place or just interpretive or speculative folklore.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

We have had threads on this recently. My impression of some of the public statements by President Hinkley was that he was not about to get into a drawn out discussion of less clearly defined beliefs during an interview that would result in sound bite quotes. Pearls before reporters and all that.

President Hinckley set a good example for the rest of us in that respect. Too many Mormons get stuck in a mire trying to explain and define certain points that they really can't because there hasn't been enough revealed about them.

When some of us are careful to avoid doing that, it gets misread as dodging or downplaying.

[Scott Lloyd]

Terryl Givens didn't give much credence at all to the theory of a "Nauvoo theology" when I heard him speak recently. He provided good reasons for his scepticism.

I would like to have heard or read that.

[volgadon]

with an additional couple weeks for those learning a particularly more difficult language, like Chinese, Japanese, or even Russian I think (I think the need to begin learning to read a new character set plays into those).

Cyrillic is the easiest part of Russian. Case endings and some major semantic nuances in the vocabulary are far harder. I do know that the curriculum was dumbed down a bit after my time there.

[Cobalt-70]

President Hinckley set a good example for the rest of us in that respect. Too many Mormons get stuck in a mire trying to explain and define certain points that they really can't because there hasn't been enough revealed about them.

When some of us are careful to avoid doing that, it gets misread as dodging or downplaying.

It usually is dodging or downplaying. If Gordon Hinckley had simply looked the interviewer in the eye and said, "Yes, we believe that God was a man like any human man, and that he still is a man, except that he has progressed to the point that he is perfect, glorified, and omnipotent," then nobody could have questioned his forthrightness. Probably nobody would have even really cared. But when he tried to make it seem like we have never taught or believed this doctrine, that Mormons don't believe this doctrine, or that Hinckley was not really clear on what the doctrine was, that just make it look like he was ashamed of his church's own theology.

[Tacenda]

It usually is dodging or downplaying. If Gordon Hinckley had simply looked the interviewer in the eye and said, "Yes, we believe that God was a man like any human man, and that he still is a man, except that he has progressed to the point that he is perfect, glorified, and omnipotent," then nobody could have questioned his forthrightness. Probably nobody would have even really cared. But when he tried to make it seem like we have never taught or believed this doctrine, that Mormons don't believe this doctrine, or that Hinckley was not really clear on what the doctrine was, that just make it look like he was ashamed of his church's own theology.

Or worried about bad PR for the church.

[MiserereNobis]

It usually is dodging or downplaying. If Gordon Hinckley had simply looked the interviewer in the eye and said, "Yes, we believe that God was a man like any human man, and that he still is a man, except that he has progressed to the point that he is perfect, glorified, and omnipotent," then nobody could have questioned his forthrightness. Probably nobody would have even really cared. But when he tried to make it seem like we have never taught or believed this doctrine, that Mormons don't believe this doctrine, or that Hinckley was not really clear on what the doctrine was, that just make it look like he was ashamed of his church's own theology.

Or worried about bad PR for the church.

Yes, this is how it appears to an outsider, especially when it seems as if most Mormons have and do believe it. Why avoid it if it has been historically taught and most believe it? The answer appears to be, as stated by others: we're ashamed of it and/or we don't want bad PR. I'm sure this is not the way you want to appear, which is why I advocate taking ownership of the doctrines and avoiding hem-hawing.

[MiserereNobis]

In response to his post, I've already stated that I don't. (I find myself in disagreement with Cobalt most of the time, in fact.)

My apologies, I must have missed it.

Rather than viewing him as your spokesman, I would prefer to get your own comments on what doctrines specifically have been downplayed and whether they really were doctrines in the first place or just interpretive or speculative folklore.

This is exactly what I am talking about (and what cinepro pointed out when he said he was skipping to the end of the conversation). My experience has been that this is the "way out" so to speak to deal with certain beliefs and, honestly, it feels phoney. When prophet after prophet, president after president, and the vast vast majority of members have been teaching and believing a certain belief, it certainly does seem like semantic quibbling to then say that it wasn't doctrine, but just speculation or folklore, so it's no big deal and don't worry about it.

Now, far be it for me to tell you what LDS doctrines are. That's not my point. I'm simply pointing out how it appears to an outsider: that the LDS church/members are embarrassed of the beliefs or are trying to hide them from others. Neither one looks good and, as I stated before, both play right into your critics' hands.

[Saints Alive]

The problem is when we get to the deeper doctrine the answers aren't as black and white. Its both the strength and weakness of revealed religion. Ask about Adam-God and I guarantee you will get 50% that swear its doctrine and 50% that swear its speculation.

To make things more complicated, thats not one of the doctrine that is essential to salvation so it makes sense to downplay it rather than create a stumbling block.

[Tacenda]

My apologies, I must have missed it.

This is exactly what I am talking about (and what cinepro pointed out when he said he was skipping to the end of the conversation). My experience has been that this is the "way out" so to speak to deal with certain beliefs and, honestly, it feels phoney. When prophet after prophet, president after president, and the vast vast majority of members have been teaching and believing a certain belief, it certainly does seem like semantic quibbling to then say that it wasn't doctrine, but just speculation or folklore, so it's no big deal and don't worry about it.

Now, far be it for me to tell you what LDS doctrines are. That's not my point. I'm simply pointing out how it appears to an outsider: that the LDS church/members are embarrassed of the beliefs or are trying to hide them from others. Neither one looks good and, as I stated before, both play right into your critics' hands.

I say we own it and stand by it. We use to say we are a peculiar people. But now it seems we are merging with the rest of Christianity. I just get a headache to try and wrap my head around what our church believes or does not believe. It kind of makes it hard for folks that are in the middle and may want to jump down off to whichever side. Personally I like the thought of believing in a God that isn't a man that has progressed to perfection. I believe Jesus was the epitome of perfection and that God isn't a man but all emcompassing. It sounds like I've never been LDS, but definitely have for my entire life. But since the church has gotten mushy on the doctrine. Now I guess that gives me room to come up with my own belief. The church needs to be concrete in which belief it will be. I think converts love the idea of progression. So the church shouldn't back away from our founders teachings.

[rongo]

The thing is that President Hinckley's approach is the only knowledgable and honest way to go about addressing the doctrine in the King Follett Discourse. That is, those who say that the KFD definitively said this or that betray themselves as unknowledgeable or disingenuous. I pointed this out in a radio interview with two Phoenix pastors a couple of years ago (Valentinus heard it, I think ---- don't know if he heard both or not).

KFD was in April of 1844, but in the Sermon in the Grove (one week before his murder), Joseph Smith states that Elohim had been a savior. This, along with other doctrinal statements made by the Brethren, strongly suggests that to become an Elohim, one must be a savior. Soooooo . . . President Hinckley's statement that we "don't know much about it," etc. is actually right on the money, and it avoided a drawn out discussion in the weeds in a setting likely to be edited and sound-bited (as the Time interview was). If one must be a savior to become a God (as opposed to a god), then saying that God was once a man needs to be clarified. Jesus was certainly "once a man" (fully God/fully man, etc.), but not in the same exact sense that we will be able to say that we were "once a man." And, if becoming gods does not entail doing do in the same exact sense as Elohim or Jehovah, then insisting the the KFD definitively meant this or that is, again, unknowledgeable or disingenuous.

What President Hinckley said was actually right on the money, and as far as we can rightly go, without further light and knowledge on the subject. Anything else, even from the prophet, is speculation and opinion.

[KevinG]

It usually is dodging or downplaying. If Gordon Hinckley had simply looked the interviewer in the eye and said, "Yes, we believe that God was a man like any human man, and that he still is a man, except that he has progressed to the point that he is perfect, glorified, and omnipotent," then nobody could have questioned his forthrightness. Probably nobody would have even really cared. But when he tried to make it seem like we have never taught or believed this doctrine, that Mormons don't believe this doctrine, or that Hinckley was not really clear on what the doctrine was, that just make it look like he was ashamed of his church's own theology.

The next time 60 minutes or Time Magazine interview you about our theology you can shoot back with a perfect answer for every question.

[mapman]

I agree that we should be more forthright about our beliefs. It is easier to do that when you're Catholic, though, because most people actually have some idea of what Catholics believe. It is hard for us to get past the correcting and clarifying to get to the expliaining. Sometimes our beliefs about exaltation are explained as "Mormons believe they can become gods and get their own planets." Instead of actually explaining what we actually believe we often just end up saying that we don't believe that (I at least don't know any Mormons who believe they get their own planet). I'm sure we can do better explaining what we believe, but it is really a lot to expect from your average person to be savvy enough to be effective. I know I often do a good job explaining myself when I'm being questioned about my beliefs because I'm always thinking about how I'm likely going to be misrepresented or mocked.

Another thing to keep in mind is that describing what Mormons believe about things is more complicated than people often think. I think it is really a different matter than asking about other religions. The theology is based around revelation. Revelation means God has lots of substantive things to say still. There is no expectation among Mormons that our beliefs will or should stay the same forever. We look forward to learning more and recognize that we don't know a lot. Except for some essential doctrines, answering what Mormons believe about something can't be done by referencing a creed or catechism, but usually end up being statements like "this scripture says this and this scripture says this", "this leader said this and this leader said this", "most Mormons believe this today and most Mormons used to believe this", "most Mormons believe this but I'm not sure myself", "we don't know very much about this topic", etc.

I think that the answer isn't to own everything that a general authority said, but to change people's expectations about defining Mormon beliefs. I'm hopeful that this can happen, but it will be difficult as people like to make things simpler than they are because it takes less effort and is easier to mock things that way.

(For the record, I believe that God is an exalted man and that we can become like him, and I'm not embarrassed of it.)

[rongo]

(For the record, I believe that God is an exalted man and that we can become like him, and I'm not embarrassed of it.)

Do you believe that God was a man just like you are, or do you believe that He was also a savior, like Jesus was?

[mapman]

I say we own it and stand by it. We use to say we are a peculiar people. But now it seems we are merging with the rest of Christianity. I just get a headache to try and wrap my head around what our church believes or does not believe. It kind of makes it hard for folks that are in the middle and may want to jump down off to whichever side. Personally I like the thought of believing in a God that isn't a man that has progressed to perfection. I believe Jesus was the epitome of perfection and that God isn't a man but all emcompassing. It sounds like I've never been LDS, but definitely have for my entire life. But since the church has gotten mushy on the doctrine. Now I guess that gives me room to come up with my own belief. The church needs to be concrete in which belief it will be. I think converts love the idea of progression. So the church shouldn't back away from our founders teachings.

Hey Tacenda, I'm not going to respond to only this specific comment, but to what I've perceived in your other comments as well. I personally like "mushy" doctrine. It is less arrogant than thinking we know everything. Just remember that we are in the 2010s now. Mormon Doctrine is out of print. I think that one of the challenges that the generation of Saints that lived during the Cold War had to deal with was an overconfidence in what we thought we knew. My generation (I was born in the 90s) has had a different experience with different challenges. I've seen all over the internet people talking about their struggles in the church and most of them don't fit my experience. Things are different than they were. Some things get better and some things get worse, but I think that the church is always moving forward overall. Over the last while the church has encouraged us to focus on core doctrines. What do we do with everything on the edges? My suggestion to you is to build your faith on Jesus. Always ask questions and seek greater understanding, but recognize your limitations. Try to get an eternal perspective on things, but recognize that you are not God and cannot see everything. Certainty is easy, but in most things will eventually lead to disillusionment as we continue to learn more. For me, I am OK with never being satisfied. It drives me to always want to learn more and to find ways to make myself and others better. We cannot be satisfied, because we are not Zion yet and God still has many great and important things to reveal. There's still lots of work to do and we can't afford to get bogged down with doubt and get sidetracked with rash decisions. We need to be open to learning new things, but nothing is worth learning unless we can put it to practical use. William James had some very wise things to say about that (look up the strenuous mood).

I hope this doesn't come off as condescending. My life kind of fell apart a while ago, and so I'm sharing some things that helped me start moving forward again. I hope it helps.

[mapman]

Do you believe that God was a man just like you are, or do you believe that He was also a savior, like Jesus was?

I don't really have any idea. I think that God the Father probably didn't have a mortal experience like ours as I think that there is no God over him. That's just speculation based on limited data, though. What I do believe is that we are the same kind of being as God, but in a very different place in our progression.

[BlueDreams]

Now, far be it for me to tell you what LDS doctrines are. That's not my point. I'm simply pointing out how it appears to an outsider: that the LDS church/members are embarrassed of the beliefs or are trying to hide them from others. Neither one looks good and, as I stated before, both play right into your critics' hands.

Think of it in the same way that outsiders to catholicism would see the statements about Limbo over the years. Honestly, I know very little about Catholicism in difinitve terms. My direct experience with it entails midnight mass, some conversation with a person in a school to become a priest, inherent cultural references, and whatever references made in Art History. And that's about it. Just because it may appear to outsiders like this or that, does not make that perception accurate.

I say we own it and stand by it. We use to say we are a peculiar people. But now it seems we are merging with the rest of Christianity. I just get a headache to try and wrap my head around what our church believes or does not believe. It kind of makes it hard for folks that are in the middle and may want to jump down off to whichever side.

Tacenda,

The LDS church is not monolithic. It is supposed to change, grow, and develop. The Core beliefs are pretty straight forward and found in any set of scriptures. Some belief, attitudes, etc held by even a majority of people are up for change through the years and should be changing. The only time I've seen an excessive "confusion" about what we "actually believe" is when people have an originally false conception about what we believe and then come to find out that, no, that's not exactly it. Some will accept that their perception is false, some come with weird elaborations as to how we really just don't know what we believe becuase it's hidden from us. This is what I see within a number of anti-mormon/evangelical groups (trust me, it was super entertaining to have an correct the errors with friends after they had a special at their local church on the mormons....the wonders of high school in TX ).

Personally I like the thought of believing in a God that isn't a man that has progressed to perfection. I believe Jesus was the epitome of perfection and that God isn't a man but all emcompassing. It sounds like I've never been LDS, but definitely have for my entire life. But since the church has gotten mushy on the doctrine. Now I guess that gives me room to come up with my own belief. The church needs to be concrete in which belief it will be. I think converts love the idea of progression. So the church shouldn't back away from our founders teachings.

And this is possibly the most confusing paragraph I've ever read. I don't know where I'd even start. The church hasn't gotten mushy on the doctrine. The problem is that people often have a hard time realizing what is doctrine and what's not. And even if it was and you now have room to "come up with my own belief" then why are you getting such a headache from figuring it out....according to you, you can just make it up and you'd be ok? And if we're "merging with Christianity" than why even worry because your fence will just dissappear anyways (except that we aren't....we don't need to, we've always been Christian in the first place). And honestly it sounds like you're gaining an understanding aboud perfection, Jesus, God and the LDS perspective on those from the POV of an evangelical rather than someone LDS.

If you want an understanding, start with the scriptures and work from there. For example Son of Man, as a title/descriptor of Chist, is used throughout the New Testament. When I read the NT I find the seperation between man and God/Christ diminished by the constant use of that title, plus the multiple scriptures that discuss the oneness of God, Christ, and eventually man strongly indicate the relationship that Christ saw between God and humanity. This is solely in the NT. In the BoM there is my favorite scripture in Moroni 7:48. And then, again, speaking of titles for God is Moses 7:35-36. There is a good start to understanding the LDS view of God and Exhaltation. That humanity and God are not as seperated and unreachable or inherently different. If there is a potential of Oneness even as Christ and the Father are one (paraphrasing a scripture from the NT that I can't remember off hand) then we can't be fundamentally different. There must be something inherently good and of God to have the potential to become One with God.

With luv,

BD

Edited October 11, 2012 by BlueDreams

[MiserereNobis]

I say we own it and stand by it. We use to say we are a peculiar people. But now it seems we are merging with the rest of Christianity.

Is the LDS church going the way of the RLDS church? Could an argument be made that the shifting of direction of the LDS church towards mainstream Christianity is the same shift the RLDS/Community of Christ church did years ago?

[rongo]

Hey Tacenda, I'm not going to respond to only this specific comment, but to what I've perceived in your other comments as well. I personally like "mushy" doctrine.

+1.

I have given 4-5 firesides over the last few years (by invitation) on the topic of answering "any" questions about the Church. One of my main introductory points is that there is very little that a person must believe to be a Mormon in good standing (we are not creedal, and don't demand orthodoxy). These core doctrines can be found in the first three questions of the temple recommend interview and the Articles of Faith. Outside of this, there are lots of "open questions" in the Church that are not settled doctrine, and we can play what Allen Wyatt coined as "prophet poker" with these open questions. "I'll see your Bruce R. McKonkie, and raise you a Brigham Young. Joseph Fielding Smith said this while he was a Seventy, but what about what James E. Talmage said as an apostle?" Etc.

The open questions get me out of bed in the morning, but they are not the core doctrines, and being wrong about them isn't fatal ---- we just need to be careful teaching them authoritatively as doctrine. These are *always* the doctrines in question when our beliefs and practices are questioned. Examples: progression between kingdoms, each world having a savior, absolute or limited omniscience, actual reasons for the priesthood ban, etc.

I agree with mapman. The fact that our doctrine is like "nailing Jello to a wall" is wonderful, and a great advantage over creedal branches of Christianity.

[cinepro]

The next time 60 minutes or Time Magazine interview you about our theology you can shoot back with a perfect answer for every question.

There's room for a lot of good answers between what President Hinckley said and "perfect".

[Cobalt-70]

I say we own it and stand by it. We use to say we are a peculiar people. But now it seems we are merging with the rest of Christianity. I just get a headache to try and wrap my head around what our church believes or does not believe. It kind of makes it hard for folks that are in the middle and may want to jump down off to whichever side. Personally I like the thought of believing in a God that isn't a man that has progressed to perfection. I believe Jesus was the epitome of perfection and that God isn't a man but all emcompassing. It sounds like I've never been LDS, but definitely have for my entire life. But since the church has gotten mushy on the doctrine. Now I guess that gives me room to come up with my own belief. The church needs to be concrete in which belief it will be. I think converts love the idea of progression. So the church shouldn't back away from our founders teachings.

We have already backed away from our founder's teachings. Hardly any Mormon alive today advocates precisely what Joseph Smith actually taught in Nauvoo. The current mainstream LDS theology is a combination of Smith's teachings, with a tiny bit of remnant Adam-God thrown in, as reformed by James Talmage, B.H. Roberts, and John Widtsoe, with additional influence by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie.

There are so many different theological ideas that have been taught through the course of Mormon history, that from my perspective I think a member of the LDS Church ought to freely be able to pick any one of them, or any combination of them, including Trinitarianism, and not be considered heterodox. So I do think that the church is currently concrete and clear on what its theology is. But I think it shouldn't be. And I think it shouldn't pretend it isn't, when actually it currently is. When Hinckley made his comments to the reporters, I don't think there was any doubt in his mind about his theological framework. But maybe we should have doubts, or at least be open to many possibilities.

[Storm Rider]

We have already backed away from our founder's teachings. Hardly any Mormon alive today advocates precisely what Joseph Smith actually taught in Nauvoo. The current mainstream LDS theology is a combination of Smith's teachings, with a tiny bit of remnant Adam-God thrown in, as reformed by James Talmage, B.H. Roberts, and John Widtsoe, with additional influence by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie.

There are so many different theological ideas that have been taught through the course of Mormon history, that from my perspective I think a member of the LDS Church ought to freely be able to pick any one of them, or any combination of them, including Trinitarianism, and not be considered heterodox. So I do think that the church is currently concrete and clear on what its theology is. But I think it shouldn't be. And I think it shouldn't pretend it isn't, when actually it currently is. When Hinckley made his comments to the reporters, I don't think there was any doubt in his mind about his theological framework. But maybe we should have doubts, or at least be open to many possibilities.

NEWS FLASH - The LDS Church actually believes in continuing revelation. Prophets continue to speak, a shocking decree to some Mormons that have created their own pet gold calves of supposed doctrine and demand that God stop talking and get with their program of chosen truth.

And some wonder why members fall away from the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ? They have itching ears and refuse to follow.