Socially Doctrinal Vs Doctrinal

[Calm]

I once had a clueless American branch president in Indonesia who, when he realised there was no sacrament bread, ran out to buy some from a street vendor, but because he couldn't speak a word of the language despite several years in the country, came back with chocoloate-filled bread rolls ... discovered only when the poor priests began breaking them.

You hit the jackpot with that one...wouldnt be surprised if some members were wishing they'd pass around an extra time or two....though poor priests and teachers dealing with the mess.

[Calm]

I served one-quarter of my mission in a singles ward where everyone simply followed the handbook. It was brilliant. I've never seen a more effective ward, and I never experienced more success as a missionary. To each his own, I guess.

I don't think people realize how much is left to the Spirit to do his work once the non handbook clutter is cleared away.

And everyone starts on the same page...so much time saved.

[Stone holm]

You hit the jackpot with that one...wouldnt be surprised if some members were wishing they'd pass around an extra time or two....though poor priests and teachers dealing with the mess.

Am I confused or do I remember stories of potato peelings being substituted in some places during WW II?

[canard78]

I don't think people realize how much is left to the Spirit to do his work once the non handbook clutter is cleared away.

And everyone starts on the same page...so much time saved.

 

It's a bit like Monopoly (the board game). It was usually a game that dragged ooooooooon in our family. When we once read and followed the rules it turned to be a much quicker and more fun game than we realised. There was lots of non-handbook clutter (family rules) that was slowing the game down and keeping it going for longer.

[Hamba Tuhan]

It's a bit like Monopoly (the board game). It was usually a game that dragged ooooooooon in our family. When we once read and followed the rules it turned to be a much quicker and more fun game than we realised. There was lots of non-handbook clutter (family rules) that was slowing the game down and keeping it going for longer.

 

Perfect analogy!

[cdowis]

"no beard"  -- I understand this is a requirement for leadership positions, missionaries and temple workers.  Otherwise, no problem.

[bluebell]

"no beard"  -- I understand this is a requirement for leadership positions, missionaries and temple workers.  Otherwise, no problem.

 

It must depend on the local leadership.

 

I've seen plenty of bishoprics that had bishops and/or counselors with beards.

[bluebell]

A recent experience that our family just had with this issue happened two Sundays ago at my oldest son's priesthood preview. 

 

They handled it at the stake level, and the program was very nice and well organized, but the stake president made a big to-do about all the boys wearing the 'priesthood uniform' of a white shirt and tie and how there was no more reason for any of the boys to ever come to church dressed in anything else.

 

This was then reiterated by the bishop when each ward broke into small groups.  Again huge emphasis was put onto wearing the 'priesthood uniform'. 

 

This bothered me on a lot of different levels. First, doctrinally we know that someone can bless and pass the sacrament, or perform any other priesthood duty they are allowed to, even if they aren't wearing a white shirt and tie. 

 

Second, the stake president had the boys all look around the room to see what the adult men were wearing.  Thankfully they all had on a white shirt and tie but the precedent set was that it's o.k. to judge someone's righteousness and their level of commitment based on what color their shirt is. 

 

Third, the priesthood is the power to act in the name of God.  Power doesn't have wear clothes.  The priesthood does NOT equal the men and boys who hold it and it SOOO bugs me when that connection is made.  My son is not 'the priesthood' and neither is any other male in church. 

 

So guess what we are learning about at FHE tonight?  We are going to learn more about the priesthood, dress codes, and how to respect and sustain our leadership, even when they teach things that aren't true.  I'm not happy that our otherwise great stake president and bishop has put me in the position of having to teach my sons how to trust and follow a leader that teaches you something that's not true, but at the same time, since all leaders are human, this is a lesson they need to have so these good men have probably done me a favor.

 

As an aside-if anyone has the exact wording used in the bishop's handbook about white shirts and ties and the sacrament I'd love to have it to use as a teaching tool!

[Stone holm]

"no beard"  -- I understand this is a requirement for leadership positions, missionaries and temple workers.  Otherwise, no problem.

Don't know about the last, it is the rule as far as I know with the other two. Mustaches and beards were allowed in cases of disfigurement in some cases. The Church used to be much stronger about discouraging facial hair and long hair back during the Cold War, I think they may have been prohibited for awhile at BYU. Now it is part of our branding process with missionaries, since it appears a considerable amount of emphasis was placed on branding during the 90's as a what I assume is a marketing tool, I don't think you will see it go away anytime soon even though its revolutionary vs establishment ties have faded.

[Rob Osborn]

A recent experience that our family just had with this issue happened two Sundays ago at my oldest son's priesthood preview. 

 

They handled it at the stake level, and the program was very nice and well organized, but the stake president made a big to-do about all the boys wearing the 'priesthood uniform' of a white shirt and tie and how there was no more reason for any of the boys to ever come to church dressed in anything else.

 

This was then reiterated by the bishop when each ward broke into small groups.  Again huge emphasis was put onto wearing the 'priesthood uniform'. 

 

This bothered me on a lot of different levels. First, doctrinally we know that someone can bless and pass the sacrament, or perform any other priesthood duty they are allowed to, even if they aren't wearing a white shirt and tie. 

 

Second, the stake president had the boys all look around the room to see what the adult men were wearing.  Thankfully they all had on a white shirt and tie but the precedent set was that it's o.k. to judge someone's righteousness and their level of commitment based on what color their shirt is. 

 

Third, the priesthood is the power to act in the name of God.  Power doesn't have wear clothes.  The priesthood does NOT equal the men and boys who hold it and it SOOO bugs me when that connection is made.  My son is not 'the priesthood' and neither is any other male in church. 

 

So guess what we are learning about at FHE tonight?  We are going to learn more about the priesthood, dress codes, and how to respect and sustain our leadership, even when they teach things that aren't true.  I'm not happy that our otherwise great stake president and bishop has put me in the position of having to teach my sons how to trust and follow a leader that teaches you something that's not true, but at the same time, since all leaders are human, this is a lesson they need to have so these good men have probably done me a favor.

 

As an aside-if anyone has the exact wording used in the bishop's handbook about white shirts and ties and the sacrament I'd love to have it to use as a teaching tool!

http://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings/20.4

[Rob Osborn]

A recent experience that our family just had with this issue happened two Sundays ago at my oldest son's priesthood preview. 

 

They handled it at the stake level, and the program was very nice and well organized, but the stake president made a big to-do about all the boys wearing the 'priesthood uniform' of a white shirt and tie and how there was no more reason for any of the boys to ever come to church dressed in anything else.

 

This was then reiterated by the bishop when each ward broke into small groups.  Again huge emphasis was put onto wearing the 'priesthood uniform'. 

 

This bothered me on a lot of different levels. First, doctrinally we know that someone can bless and pass the sacrament, or perform any other priesthood duty they are allowed to, even if they aren't wearing a white shirt and tie. 

 

Second, the stake president had the boys all look around the room to see what the adult men were wearing.  Thankfully they all had on a white shirt and tie but the precedent set was that it's o.k. to judge someone's righteousness and their level of commitment based on what color their shirt is. 

 

Third, the priesthood is the power to act in the name of God.  Power doesn't have wear clothes.  The priesthood does NOT equal the men and boys who hold it and it SOOO bugs me when that connection is made.  My son is not 'the priesthood' and neither is any other male in church. 

 

So guess what we are learning about at FHE tonight?  We are going to learn more about the priesthood, dress codes, and how to respect and sustain our leadership, even when they teach things that aren't true.  I'm not happy that our otherwise great stake president and bishop has put me in the position of having to teach my sons how to trust and follow a leader that teaches you something that's not true, but at the same time, since all leaders are human, this is a lesson they need to have so these good men have probably done me a favor.

 

As an aside-if anyone has the exact wording used in the bishop's handbook about white shirts and ties and the sacrament I'd love to have it to use as a teaching tool!

This reminds me of something. We dont worship the church we worship God and God is love. I think at times we get so into worshiping "church" that we forget why the church is there and what it i for. The church is not a platform we should worship but rather the platform in which helps us to worship from and that can only be found upon the pure love of Christ. When we picture in our hearts or minds immediately what comes to our mind when I say "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" I would hope its not a picture of the building but instead Christ praying to Father in our behalf.

[Rob Osborn]

I also want to add that I tend to believe we have a habit of worshiping the craftsmanship of our temples and not the God whose home it is.

[canard78]

As an aside-if anyone has the exact wording used in the bishop's handbook about white shirts and ties and the sacrament I'd love to have it to use as a teaching tool!

 

It's on the first page:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62255-socially-doctrinal-vs-doctrinal/#entry1209320378

 

I'm glad you're going to teach this principle to the kids. It's too bad some people still get this wrong.

[Stone holm]

Lol

My Dad on the other hand has always had a bee in his bonnet about all the junk and impurities that goes into white bread and how brown bread is more wholesome and more like what was used 2000 years ago.

But I agree that getting a big sesame seed stuck in your teeth is a bit distracting.

 

Definitely should go to brownies...if they were laced with a little MJ it might quiet all us rowdies in the back row as well.

[Calm]

 

how there was no more reason for any of the boys to ever come to church dressed in anything else.

Oh, that is really concerning...draws such a sharp line that is so close to the 'safe' wall that the road is almost too narrow for common traffic.  I don't disagree with those who discourage others from walking as close to the edge of the cliff as possible, but to force people to basically inch their way along the opposite wall because they are so tightly squeezed up against it and to suggest if they stumble and cross that line of nothing but white shirts, they are hopeless and shouldn't even bother to come to church at all....how else are the boys going to interpret that?

Edited November 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

A recent experience that our family just had with this issue happened two Sundays ago at my oldest son's priesthood preview. 

 

They handled it at the stake level, and the program was very nice and well organized, but the stake president made a big to-do about all the boys wearing the 'priesthood uniform' of a white shirt and tie and how there was no more reason for any of the boys to ever come to church dressed in anything else.

 

This was then reiterated by the bishop when each ward broke into small groups.  Again huge emphasis was put onto wearing the 'priesthood uniform'. 

 

This bothered me on a lot of different levels. First, doctrinally we know that someone can bless and pass the sacrament, or perform any other priesthood duty they are allowed to, even if they aren't wearing a white shirt and tie. 

 

Second, the stake president had the boys all look around the room to see what the adult men were wearing.  Thankfully they all had on a white shirt and tie but the precedent set was that it's o.k. to judge someone's righteousness and their level of commitment based on what color their shirt is. 

 

Third, the priesthood is the power to act in the name of God.  Power doesn't have wear clothes.  The priesthood does NOT equal the men and boys who hold it and it SOOO bugs me when that connection is made.  My son is not 'the priesthood' and neither is any other male in church. 

 

So guess what we are learning about at FHE tonight?  We are going to learn more about the priesthood, dress codes, and how to respect and sustain our leadership, even when they teach things that aren't true.  I'm not happy that our otherwise great stake president and bishop has put me in the position of having to teach my sons how to trust and follow a leader that teaches you something that's not true, but at the same time, since all leaders are human, this is a lesson they need to have so these good men have probably done me a favor.

 

As an aside-if anyone has the exact wording used in the bishop's handbook about white shirts and ties and the sacrament I'd love to have it to use as a teaching tool!

Lol...that definitely would not have played out well in our Ward, must have been a fairly prosperous Ward. I remember being in a Sunday School class and a wonderful Sister from NZ was there visiting her son and she just cut loose against the white shirt and tie rule, it was truly glorious to behold to listen to a mother shred that piece of branding with a NZ accent.

[bluebell]

Lol...that definitely would not have played out well in our Ward, must have been a fairly prosperous Ward. I remember being in a Sunday School class and a wonderful Sister from NZ was there visiting her son and she just cut loose against the white shirt and tie rule, it was truly glorious to behold to listen to a mother shred that piece of branding with a NZ accent.

 

Honestly, we are new to the area so I have no idea how prosperous it is.  Most of my ward seems to be middle-class with a few who have more serious money and then a few who have much less.  I have no idea what the rest of the stake looks like.  I barely know how to find the stake center.

[Storm Rider]

A recent experience that our family just had with this issue happened two Sundays ago at my oldest son's priesthood preview. 

 

They handled it at the stake level, and the program was very nice and well organized, but the stake president made a big to-do about all the boys wearing the 'priesthood uniform' of a white shirt and tie and how there was no more reason for any of the boys to ever come to church dressed in anything else.

 

This was then reiterated by the bishop when each ward broke into small groups.  Again huge emphasis was put onto wearing the 'priesthood uniform'. 

 

This bothered me on a lot of different levels. First, doctrinally we know that someone can bless and pass the sacrament, or perform any other priesthood duty they are allowed to, even if they aren't wearing a white shirt and tie. 

 

Second, the stake president had the boys all look around the room to see what the adult men were wearing.  Thankfully they all had on a white shirt and tie but the precedent set was that it's o.k. to judge someone's righteousness and their level of commitment based on what color their shirt is. 

 

Third, the priesthood is the power to act in the name of God.  Power doesn't have wear clothes.  The priesthood does NOT equal the men and boys who hold it and it SOOO bugs me when that connection is made.  My son is not 'the priesthood' and neither is any other male in church. 

 

So guess what we are learning about at FHE tonight?  We are going to learn more about the priesthood, dress codes, and how to respect and sustain our leadership, even when they teach things that aren't true.  I'm not happy that our otherwise great stake president and bishop has put me in the position of having to teach my sons how to trust and follow a leader that teaches you something that's not true, but at the same time, since all leaders are human, this is a lesson they need to have so these good men have probably done me a favor.

 

As an aside-if anyone has the exact wording used in the bishop's handbook about white shirts and ties and the sacrament I'd love to have it to use as a teaching tool!

 

I find this type of behavior to be very cultish and irrelevant to the Gospel of Christ. It makes me think of an old thought of mine, "Every policy created is taking one step away from Christ and back toward the Law of Moses, which Jesus has already fulfilled."  Why do people do this?  Why do they feel compelled to create policies and demand uniformity in dress?  It is the heart that must unite with the Godhead, not our clothes.

[bluebell]

Oh, that is really concerning...draws such a sharp line that is so close to the 'safe' wall that the road is almost too narrow for common traffic.  I don't disagree with those who discourage others from walking as close to the edge of the cliff as possible, but to force people to basically inch their way along the opposite wall because they are so tightly squeezed up against it and to suggest if they stumble and cross that line of nothing but white shirts, they are hopeless and shouldn't even bother to come to church at all....how else are the boys going to interpret that?

 

Especially considering that my sons know wonderful men, including their own father, who sometimes go to church in a shirt that isn't white!

[Stone holm]

I find this type of behavior to be very cultish and irrelevant to the Gospel of Christ. It makes me think of an old thought of mine, "Every policy created is taking one step away from Christ and back toward the Law of Moses, which Jesus has already fulfilled."  Why do people do this?  Why do they feel compelled to create policies and demand uniformity in dress?  It is the heart that must unite with the Godhead, not our clothes.

Yet we should feel blessed that our branding image is 1950's middle class white business men and their families. What if instead of a cult of normalcy in American middle class dress standards wasn't part of our brand. What if we say had seized upon some hair and hat style from long ago and were required to walk around with long side locks and strange hats. Or were required to wear beards and banned from using buttons? No our obsession is pretty benign, and if it makes our leaders feel better about themselves, then perhaps it's worth the effort. But, our Bishop actually scolded the brothers because some nitwit had said, "is that the best you can do for The Lord" to an investigator who wore flip flops to watch a video of General Conference at the Chapel. So the Spirit varies with the leaders.

[JarMan]

Hey again,

 

I once talked to a member of the bishopric that told me that not everything Mormons do is doctrinal, but ends up seeming like it because it just got popular. If you could shed light on some things for me (and references if you got em) I would like that.

 

 

Example: Suit and tie to deliver sacrement - Doctrinal or not?

There are lots of things in the CHI that, in my opinion, are not doctrinal. A couple that come to mind are the issues of cremation and surgical sterilization. The church position on cremation has softened quite a bit over the years, but for some reason the church can't completely let go of this and just say to treat the dead in accordance with local customs. As for surgical sterilization, I find it contradictory for the church to say that birth control is a personal decision, but then in the next breath say that surgical sterilization is not okay. Is it a personal decision or not?

 

I think opposition to both of these are just cultural relics and have nothing to do with doctrine.

[Calm]

then in the next breath say that surgical sterilization is not okay

 

Not quite that extreme.

 

The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer.

 

There are women who use abortion as a birth control method.  I don't see the Church discouraging abortion except in a few cases as inappropriate so just because it can be categorized as a 'birth control method' means it should be off limits for commenting on, in some ways I would suggest that sterilization has some of the same concerns in that it is very hard to reverse the process and the individual will have to live with the consequences of that decision the rest of her or his life.

Edited November 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

There are lots of things in the CHI that, in my opinion, are not doctrinal. A couple that come to mind are the issues of cremation and surgical sterilization. The church position on cremation has softened quite a bit over the years, but for some reason the church can't completely let go of this and just say to treat the dead in accordance with local customs. As for surgical sterilization, I find it contradictory for the church to say that birth control is a personal decision, but then in the next breath say that surgical sterilization is not okay. Is it a personal decision or not?

 

I think opposition to both of these are just cultural relics and have nothing to do with doctrine.

 

As long as the handbook is not available for most members, I don't think it can be considered "doctrinal" (though that is a nebulous term).

 

For example (sorry for the TMI), I had a vasectomy some time before being put in a calling that gave me access to handbook 1.  Then I read handbook one and found out that it's discouraged... I think that if the Lord wanted me to not have a vasectomy, He probably would have made such information available to me and not hidden in a book that I couldn't access.

[JarMan]

Not quite that extreme.

 

There are women who use abortion as a birth control method.  I don't see the Church discouraging abortion except in a few cases as inappropriate so just because it can be categorized as a 'birth control method' means it should be off limits for commenting on, in some ways I would suggest that sterilization has some of the same concerns in that it is very hard to reverse the process and the individual will have to live with the consequences of that decision the rest of her or his life.

17.3.4 Birth Control

It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

 

17.3.15 Surgical Sterilization (Including Vasectomy)

The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer.

 

I'm blown away that you just compared abortion to sterilization. Abortion is not simply a personal decision because it involves another human life. So there is clearly a moral interest. What possible moral interest could there be regarding sterilization given that decisions regarding birth control are "extremely intimate and private"?

[JarMan]

As long as the handbook is not available for most members, I don't think it can be considered "doctrinal" (though that is a nebulous term).

 

That was sort of my point. People treat things in the handbook as if they are doctrinal. But there are several things that, in my opinion, just don't belong in there.