Socially Doctrinal Vs Doctrinal

[canard78]

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?

I recently took the "goodcultbadcult" quiz. With a lot of the questions on there I considered how to answer from two possible perspectives. One is actual Mormon doctrine and policy based on canon and the handbooks respectively. By that count we are not a cult. On the other hand I considered what some of my answers might be if I based them on my experiences of the culture and "old knowledge" (which is usually like the "family rules" monopoly, they were never even in any handbook to begin with). In the second instance we do sometimes act a bit "cultish."

I certainly don't think we're a cult (who gets to define them anyway?), but individuals sometimes get hung up on things they didn't ought to.

I see some people's desire to teach their kids to follow the leaders, even in their error, but wouldn't it be better to teach the kids the actual principle, not the old knowledge, and then teach the leader about his misunderstanding too? The leader might be a tougher task. Old knowledge sticks like glue. But at the very least we can protect the rising generation from it.

If you like, you can cite a few branches I visited in Asia. A new member with a grey shirt and no tie passing sacrament. A young adult in a blue shirt an a beard blessing it. The ordinance was in no way weakened or spoilt.

[canard78]

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.

Hear, hear!

[Tacenda]

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.

Join my world girl. That is, as far as your post about white shirts. Edited November 26, 2013 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

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.

This is so true, I'm glad a TBM has finally saw the light. I've been thinking all along about this!!!

[Calm]

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).

It is in handbook 2 now and online.

[Calm]

 

 

I'm blown away that you just compared abortion to sterilization. 

 

Do you have a problem with mentioning abortion in connection with anything else because it is such an emotional issue?  In no way did I suggest that the two were equivalent.  In fact I went out of my way to make the point that there were only some ways they were related and as far as I am concerned, here the only one intended by me to be used is that they can both be lifealtering decisions and thus should both be taken with great care and caution.  Since I myself have undergone sterilization, I am hardly prejudiced against it.

 

What possible moral interest could there be regarding sterilization given that decisions regarding birth control are "extremely intimate and private"?

 

 

The same moral interest that exists such that church leaders encourage people to get married and have children in the first place.  Saying that the decisions are private doesn't mean that there is no counsel that should be given for them.  Having sex is something extremely intimate and private and yet the Church is quite happy to give us moral counsel about when and with whom we should and shouldn't be having it with (in marriage with our spouses and no one else).

Edited November 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

If you like, you can cite a few branches I visited in Asia. A new member with a grey shirt and no tie passing sacrament. A young adult in a blue shirt an a beard blessing it. The ordinance was in no way weakened or spoilt.

I told my husband about the lesson and he said if he had been in the congregation, he would have showed up the next week in a coloured shirt and likely every week after it for quite some time.  I was proud.

Edited November 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

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"?

Since when has the Church been deterred because something was extremely intimate and private?

[rockpond]

It is in handbook 2 now and online.

 

Okay, fair enough.  And how often does your average member hop online to read Handbook 2? 

[Stone holm]

Okay, fair enough.  And how often does your average member hop online to read Handbook 2? 

 

Almost never, and most do not realize it is online.  The Church used to guard the General Handbook, even copying it was prohibited.

[thesometimesaint]

The CHI really is on a need to know basis. No Bishop I've ever had has ever declined my reading it.

[rockpond]

The CHI really is on a need to know basis. No Bishop I've ever had has ever declined my reading it.

 

Likewise, as a bishop's counselor, if someone asked me about something and I knew an answer was in Handbook 1 -- I wouldn't hesitate to show them what the handbook says.

 

But, you have to know to ask.  To return to the previous example, I doubt that the average member would ever think to ask a ward leader:  "What does the handbook say about vasectomies?"

[bluebell]

Likewise, as a bishop's counselor, if someone asked me about something and I knew an answer was in Handbook 1 -- I wouldn't hesitate to show them what the handbook says.

 

But, you have to know to ask.  To return to the previous example, I doubt that the average member would ever think to ask a ward leader:  "What does the handbook say about vasectomies?"

 

Members need to become more familiar with lds.org.  Handbook 2, like a lot of other things, is available right there-with all this great information in it, but members don't even bother to look for it.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree, but I not too sure the average member is all that interested in what the CHI says on any given subject. We're more likely to just listen to what our Bishop's say and let it go at that. As far as vasectomy's are concerned  the Church does discourage them without good medical reasons(They are permanent). But it is really up to the individual.

Edited November 26, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[CV75]

In many instances, I think the Handbook is there to give leaders some guidelines to follow in counseling members that have struggled enough with a question to take it to their leader.Many saints figure out their solutions on their own, with the help of the Spirit or not, and it doesn't even cross their mind to ask their leader. I think enough people have asked certain questions that the general counsel gets into the Handbook, with room for people to make the final decision themselves, often with no fault/no foul as far as Church standards go--this would certainly depend on the issue.

 

This is one of the great blessings of the Gift of the Holy Ghost. He will guide us, but will also comfort us when we have missed His guidance and erred in good faith, and He will even yet comfort us when we repent of having erred in not-so-good faith.

[rockpond]

Members need to become more familiar with lds.org.  Handbook 2, like a lot of other things, is available right there-with all this great information in it, but members don't even bother to look for it.

 

Nearly every member I know is familiar with lds.org.  They use it often for scripture study and lesson/talk prep.  But they wouldn't be inclined to study the handbook and I wouldn't suggest that they spend their time on it either.

[rockpond]

In many instances, I think the Handbook is there to give leaders some guidelines to follow in counseling members that have struggled enough with a question to take it to their leader.Many saints figure out their solutions on their own, with the help of the Spirit or not, and it doesn't even cross their mind to ask their leader. I think enough people have asked certain questions that the general counsel gets into the Handbook, with room for people to make the final decision themselves, often with no fault/no foul as far as Church standards go--this would certainly depend on the issue.

 

This is one of the great blessings of the Gift of the Holy Ghost. He will guide us, but will also comfort us when we have missed His guidance and erred in good faith, and He will even yet comfort us when we repent of having erred in not-so-good faith.

 

That's pretty close to my view of the handbook as well.  It's there to help leaders run the church consistently and provide answers to "FAQ's".

 

Like you said, I think that most members figure out answers on their own and with the guidance of the Spirit and wouldn't even think about approaching their bishop.  In my example, I am not concerned that an action I took was contradictory to the handbook because all along my wife and I have prayed about our family planning.  This final step was consistent with the inspiration we've felt throughout the process.

 

In short, the handbook is a leadership guide, not a doctrinal tome.  

[bluebell]

Nearly every member I know is familiar with lds.org.  They use it often for scripture study and lesson/talk prep.  But they wouldn't be inclined to study the handbook and I wouldn't suggest that they spend their time on it either.

 

My point is that most members are only familiar with the scriptures and lessons/ensign talks on lds.org and that many have no idea of everything else that is actually on there.

[bluebell]

I agree, but I not too sure the average member is all that interested in what the CHI says on any given subject. We're more likely to just listen to what our Bishop's say and let it go at that. As far as vasectomy's are concerned  the Church does discourage them without good medical reasons(They are permanent). But it is really up to the individual.

 

They must not be too permanent as I know two people who have had them reversed and gone on to have more children. 

[Calm]

They must not be too permanent as I know two people who have had them reversed and gone on to have more children.

http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/vasectomy-reversal-vasovasostomy

There are other forms of sterilisation that can't be reverse or have a low success rate or is major surgery with those inherent risks all such involve.

That they felt the need to reverse them indicates that perhaps some more thought about the long term effects might have been useful.

Percentages of successful reversals of tubal ligations and vasectomies have gone up significantly over the years. I suspect eventually we will be getting a form of clip or plug that can be turned open or closed rendering permanent sterilisation solely for that purpose obsolete.

Edited November 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

My point is that most members are only familiar with the scriptures and lessons/ensign talks on lds.org and that many have no idea of everything else that is actually on there.

 

I understand.  But have we ever had council coming from the Brethren to go out and study the handbook?  Has it ever been presented in such a way?

[bluebell]

I understand.  But have we ever had council coming from the Brethren to go out and study the handbook?  Has it ever been presented in such a way?

 

I'm not arguing anything different.  I'm just saying that a lot of member ignorance is the result of not caring enough to actually look for the information.

[rockpond]

I'm not arguing anything different.  I'm just saying that a lot of member ignorance is the result of not caring enough to actually look for the information.

 

Okay... It's just that for me, that comes across as a very negative spin.  In my case, it wasn't that I didn't care enough to look for the information.  I just never imagined that my church would have a policy statement on what procedures my wife and I could use to implement our family planning.

 

Then again, even though it exists, it doesn't carry much weight with me since it is just a policy statement.

[Stone holm]

Although we often resort to the Handbook of Instructions to settle what the current policies of the Church, but are we to use it as Scripture? I think not, it is there simply to homogenize our policies for the moment.

[bluebell]

Okay... It's just that for me, that comes across as a very negative spin.  In my case, it wasn't that I didn't care enough to look for the information.  I just never imagined that my church would have a policy statement on what procedures my wife and I could use to implement our family planning.

 

Then again, even though it exists, it doesn't carry much weight with me since it is just a policy statement.

 

I didn't mean to sound negative.  What I meant was that a lot of members don't care what the church has to say about certain things, so they don't bother to check to see what the church actual has to say (hope that makes sense).

 

I knew the church's stance on vasectomies in high school.  It's probably due to being a girl and just generally being more interested in all things marriage and children than boys would be at that age, but it was common knowledge in my peer group that the church had a stance on birth control, so it seemed obvious to everyone that they would have a stance on vasectomies as part of that.  We were too young to consult the handbook (or even know about it's existence) but we had ample access to adults who knew so that wasn't ever an issue.