When Is Doctrine Really Doctrine?

[Stone holm]

I would call it an accumulation.

 

I would say its like "beauty" as its in the eye of the beholder

[jkwilliams]

I would call it an accumulation.

 

I'd call it a journey of discovery. at least it has been for me.

[jkwilliams]

Oh and before someone brings it up "truth is knowledge of things as they are"

 

Things as they are are defined culturally.   Knowledge of things as they are is knowledge of their cultural reality.

 

What does it mean to know of something's cultural reality? And how does one go about knowing that cultural reality?

[mfbukowski]

What does it mean to know of something's cultural reality? And how does one go about knowing that cultural reality?

That was just a phrase I made up to illustrate that we think in sentences which are of course expressed in language and that language infuses a cultural understanding into everything said in that language.

 

It's why Muslims wise do not "translate" the Quran.  You will find English editions of course but they will always be labeled as an "interpretation".

 

But that does not go far enough really in my opinion- when we are talking about ideas as abstract as "doctrine" every individual human being tends to have their own interpretation of what such words mean, colored by their life experiences, upbringing and a host of other influences.

 

Look at the phrase "establish doctrine" and the tussle we got into over that one.  It meant one thing to you and something entirely different to me.

Edited December 11, 2013 by mfbukowski

[DBMormon]

Next time you teach make sure to use the new statement on race and the priesthood.  Explain how prior prophets taught doctrine that has now been repudiated.  That should do the trick. 

And you can prove it with the 1947 correspondence from Dr. Lowery Nelson

[mfbukowski]

I hope I am not alone in that.

You are not.

[mfbukowski]

Unless the truth makes you unhappy.

Only you can make you unhappy.

[Calm]

." It asks me to take initiative, rather than wait to be fed. Church has been a lot more fun, more interesting and more satisfying since I have done so. Ive found that nothing about that church can keep me from learning if I want to, and there are a great many sources within the community who are eager, willing, and able to help me learn, and it often comes a lot faster than if I wait for correlation to catch up. FAIR, Interpreter, Maxwell Institute, even sometimes discussion boards within the Bloggernacle.Interestingly, the formal definition of doctrine by Jesus includes "repent" and word itself calls for a change of mind. If we had a full and formal, nailed down, set in concrete, consistent and unchangeable set of thoughts to think, that word would not apply as broadly and as well as it does. Accept the doctrine of Christ means continual repentance, which besides referring to moral missteps, also means repent of being ignorant, learn something new, seek it out.FWIWKevin ChristensenPittsburgh, PA

It is always interesting to me to hear people complain about the Church not being interesting because the more meaty concepts of the gospel are not being locked down sufficiently and taught to the Saints. it is only milk they see themselves as being given to eatand it has grown tedious.

In school, it was not the facts and theories that were spelled out for me that were the fun part of learning, but the going off on my own from suggestions or a few guides and then experimenting and manipulating until I came up with answers for myself. I see Church as providing us with the basic ingredients and then encouraging us to cook a meal for ourselves...and just like real food, we can choose to keep it bland or basic but tasty or go hunting for some exotic ingredients to spice it up from time to time. If a grown man sat at the dinner table and constantly complained about what he was being served, that it was tasteless, repetitive, etc...wouldn't the natural response of pretty much everyone be to tell him to get off his seat and go cook for himself? I don't see why it should be much different in any other area of consumption.

As long as peope look on the Church as a cafeteria with a set of doctrines, teachings and policies they have the choice of rejecting or accepting and 'consuming' as spiritual and mental nourishment, eventually boredom from the limited diet will set in.

Otoh, if someone looks on the Church as a kitchen with a large pantry and an invitation to explore the world for the choicest of ingredients (Kevin has already pointed out the counsel to seek out the best books...learning doesn't have to come in only book form) and one as the chef with the choice to create one's own meals, then that individual is likely to be looking forward to a lifetime of new and familiar experiences in relationship with their faith and the practice of it.

Passivity...waiting to be fed spiritual truths...will always end in boredom IMO. It is being actively engaged not only in doing good, but seeking the truth that will fill a life with wonder and immense satisfaction.

Edited December 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

It is always interesting to me to hear people complain about the Church not being interesting because the more meaty concepts of the gospel are not being locked down sufficiently and taught to the Saints. it is only milk they see themselves as being given to eatand it has grown tedious.

In school, it was not the facts and theories that were spelled out for me that were the fun part of learning, but the going off on my own from suggestions or a few guides and then experimenting and manipulating until I came up with answers for myself. I see Church as providing us with the basic ingredients and then encouraging us to cook a meal for ourselves...and just like real food, we can choose to keep it bland or basic but tasty or go hunting for some exotic ingredients to spice it up from time to time. If a grown man sat at the dinner table and constantly complained about what he was being served, that it was tasteless, repetitive, etc...wouldn't the natural response of pretty much everyone be to tell him to get off his seat and go cook for himself? I don't see why it should be much different in any other area of consumption.

As long as peope look on the Church as a cafeteria with a set of doctrines, teachings and policies they have the choice of rejecting or accepting and 'consuming' as spiritual and mental nourishment, eventually boredom from the limited diet will set in.

Otoh, if someone looks on the Church as a kitchen with a large pantry and an invitation to explore the world for the choicest of ingredients (Kevin has already pointed out the counsel to seek out the best books...learning doesn't have to come in only book form) and one as the chef with the choice to create one's own meals, then that individual is likely to be looking forward to a lifetime of new and familiar experiences in relationship with their faith and the practice of it.

Passivity...waiting to be fed spiritual truths...will always end in boredom IMO. It is being actively engaged not only in doing good, but seeking the truth that will fill a life with wonder and immense satisfaction.

I agree with this, and one of the elements that makes Sunday School gospel doctrine class stimulating for me as a learner is to hear other class members relate how they themselves have taken the basic gospel ingredients and cooked a stew that tastes good to them.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

Did you see my post #149 the section from Midgley's RBBM 1 essay, quoting Jesus' very clear statement on what is and what is not doctrine?

Though a few people "got it" I notice that it did not take very long for some people to sidle away from that, and back to a social-conventional definition.

It seems to me that the urge to pin everything down, rather than just accept what Jesus specifies as his doctrine, avoids his saying that any attempt to build on anything else amounts to a sandy foundation. You are actually complaining about having a sandy foundation with respect to notions external to his formal definition. Many want to have all things closed and settled, packaged, and shelved in a Big Book of What to Think, but that is in tension with what is basic to Mormonism, the notion of ongoing revelation. Of course, on the Myers-Briggs scale, I have the P preference, which makes for an urge to put off making decisions until I have more and better information, rather than the J preference, which makes for the urge to have things closed and settled. The Perry Scheme also has implications.

Whenever I see books like Mormon Doctrine, or the more recent We Believe, I actually cringe inside. If I did know what to think on all topics, I would, with regard to what I should think, be beyond repentance. That would give me an impressive moral and rhetorical advantage. Indeed, I'd then be rather godlike, no longer an arm of flesh, but an idol worthy of worship

Nibley comments that every system needs a few constants to give it structure. The issue is how many constants do we need to give our system a viable structure?

 

Notice that the implied definition of Doctrine (with a capital D) here is very much at odds with the quotation from Jesus in 3 Nephi. It comes with valid complaints about the uncertain, shifting, foundation, but without acknowledging that this is just what the restricted definition offered by Jesus predicts when we try to extend the definition of doctrine into, "Once and for all, what should we think on all topics?" Quoting Midgley's essay again:

"On this matter it is instructive that after Jesus declared his doctrine to the Nephites (3 Nephi 11:31-39), he added that "whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it as my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them" (3 Nephi 11:40).

 

Think about where these topics might fit, or not, into the formal definition of doctrine as given by Jesus:

"And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned" (3 Nephi 11:33-34).

 

While on my mission in England, back in 1974, finding myself unprepared to face some of the questions thrown at us by some middle schoolers who were visibly passing around what were probably their first anti-Mormon pamphlets, I learned not to trust the institutional church to prepare me for everything I might encounter, no matter how many meetings I attended, or how many times I set up or took down chairs, or played basketball, or participated in roadshows or choir or service projects or scouting. So what could I do? "Seek ye out of the best books wisdom." It does not say, "seek ye out of the correlated manuals," or "assume that all of your church leaders have been carefully and thoroughly instructed in all things before having been given the job." It asks me to take initiative, rather than wait to be fed. Church has been a lot more fun, more interesting and more satisfying since I have done so. Ive found that nothing about that church can keep me from learning if I want to, and there are a great many sources within the community who are eager, willing, and able to help me learn, and it often comes a lot faster than if I wait for correlation to catch up. FAIR, Interpreter, Maxwell Institute, even sometimes discussion boards within the Bloggernacle.

Interestingly, the formal definition of doctrine by Jesus includes "repent" and word itself calls for a change of mind. If we had a full and formal, nailed down, set in concrete, consistent and unchangeable set of thoughts to think, that word would not apply as broadly and as well as it does. Accept the doctrine of Christ means continual repentance, which besides referring to moral missteps, also means repent of being ignorant, learn something new, seek it out.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I recently had a protracted discussion with an individual who maintained that the "prime directive" of the church was essentially "obey or else".

 

I was really sad to hear that he felt that way.  Clearly there are many on this thread who would disagree with that view and see it as you do, and see the potential richness available to us.

 

On the boards I often hear the words "But that's not what the church teaches!" when I post my two cents, and I always counter with the idea that the true "prime directive" insofar as there is one, MUST be "follow the spirit".  Absent that, we would have no reason to even join the church.

 

Continuing revelation- both to individuals and the church- is what produces the richness of what can be understood within an open canon.  And clearly that is what is meant by ours being the only "true and LIVING" church.

 

It is really saddening to me that some just plain cannot see that.

[mfbukowski]

I agree with this, and one of the elements that makes Sunday School gospel doctrine class stimulating for me as a learner is to hear other class members relate how they themselves have taken the basic gospel ingredients and cooked a stew that works for them.

Oh how I love those last 3 words!  "What works for them" is the key to all of it.

[Brian 2.0]

Using Midgley's quote that Kevin provided, where does Temple ordinances stand in terms of doctrine?  They are obviously outside of the "doctrine of christ" as outlined in the BOM.

 

So are the temple ordinances not doctrine, but simply rites and traditions that we have added on?

 

Or are they a sequel of sorts to the BOM doctrines of Christ.

 

BOM "doctrine of christ" instructs you how to be saved (enter celestial kingdom)

Latter-Day "doctrine" instructs you how to be exalted (be like God)

 

Thoughts?

Edited December 12, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Stone holm]

It is always interesting to me to hear people complain about the Church not being interesting because the more meaty concepts of the gospel are not being locked down sufficiently and taught to the Saints. it is only milk they see themselves as being given to eatand it has grown tedious.

In school, it was not the facts and theories that were spelled out for me that were the fun part of learning, but the going off on my own from suggestions or a few guides and then experimenting and manipulating until I came up with answers for myself. I see Church as providing us with the basic ingredients and then encouraging us to cook a meal for ourselves...and just like real food, we can choose to keep it bland or basic but tasty or go hunting for some exotic ingredients to spice it up from time to time. If a grown man sat at the dinner table and constantly complained about what he was being served, that it was tasteless, repetitive, etc...wouldn't the natural response of pretty much everyone be to tell him to get off his seat and go cook for himself? I don't see why it should be much different in any other area of consumption.

As long as peope look on the Church as a cafeteria with a set of doctrines, teachings and policies they have the choice of rejecting or accepting and 'consuming' as spiritual and mental nourishment, eventually boredom from the limited diet will set in.

Otoh, if someone looks on the Church as a kitchen with a large pantry and an invitation to explore the world for the choicest of ingredients (Kevin has already pointed out the counsel to seek out the best books...learning doesn't have to come in only book form) and one as the chef with the choice to create one's own meals, then that individual is likely to be looking forward to a lifetime of new and familiar experiences in relationship with their faith and the practice of it.

Passivity...waiting to be fed spiritual truths...will always end in boredom IMO. It is being actively engaged not only in doing good, but seeking the truth that will fill a life with wonder and immense satisfaction.

Sounds like a very interesting church which encourages people to go out find the meat themselves, what is the name of it since it's not the one I belong to.

[mfbukowski]

Using Midgley's quote that Kevin provided, where does Temple ordinances stand in terms of doctrine?  They are obviously outside of the "doctrine of christ" as outlined in the BOM.

 

So are the temple ordinances not doctrine, but simply rites and traditions that we have added on?

 

Or are they a sequel of sorts to the BOM doctrines of Christ.

 

BOM "doctrine of christ" instructs you how to be saved (enter celestial kingdom)

Latter-Day "doctrine" instructs you how to be exalted (be like God)

 

Thoughts?

For the symbolically minded, they blow that one doctrine up to the size of the universe and let you cruise around inside and examine it from every angle.  But of course it would take one many lifetimes to examine every part of the universe wouldn't it?

[jkwilliams]

I recently had a protracted discussion with an individual who maintained that the "prime directive" of the church was essentially "obey or else".

 

I was really sad to hear that he felt that way.  Clearly there are many on this thread who would disagree with that view and see it as you do, and see the potential richness available to us.

 

On the boards I often hear the words "But that's not what the church teaches!" when I post my two cents, and I always counter with the idea that the true "prime directive" insofar as there is one, MUST be "follow the spirit".  Absent that, we would have no reason to even join the church.

 

Continuing revelation- both to individuals and the church- is what produces the richness of what can be understood within an open canon.  And clearly that is what is meant by ours being the only "true and LIVING" church.

 

It is really saddening to me that some just plain cannot see that.

 

Prime directive? No, but I think it's inaccurate to say that following the spirit trumps obedience to priesthood leaders. I've never once heard any counsel like that, not in the scriptures, and not from the brethren. Most people, myself included, tend to balance what we feel guided to do if it conflicts with what we are asked by those in authority. But, whether or not it makes you sad, I do not believe the church places a higher value on following the spirit and is not concerned with obedience.

Edited December 12, 2013 by jkwilliams

[mfbukowski]

Sounds like a very interesting church which encourages people to go out find the meat themselves, what is the name of it since it's not the one I belong to.

I saw you coming down the road.

 

See post 235

[mfbukowski]

Prime directive? No, but I think it's inaccurate to say that following the spirit trumps obedience to priesthood leaders.

Honestly I find this difficult to even take seriously.

 

If the spirit does not confirm to me that they ARE my "leaders" why in God's name -literally- would I want to obey them in the first place??

 

The church is not a concentration camp.  We get to vote with our feet if we don't get spiritual confirmation of any principle.  Despite the opinions of many, this is not a social club.

[jkwilliams]

Honestly I find this difficult to even take seriously.

 

If the spirit does not confirm to me that they ARE my "leaders" why in God's name -literally- would I want to obey them in the first place??

 

The church is not a concentration camp.  We get to vote with our feet if we don't get spiritual confirmation of any principle.  Despite the opinions of many, this is not a social club.

 

It's this hyperbole that I believe impedes our interaction. Concentration camp? That is plain silly and, as you say, difficult to take seriously.

[Stone holm]

I saw you coming down the road.

 

See post 235

Well yes and no. Yes we have wonderfully deep and rich spiritual doctrine of substance , meat, but Calmoriah was suggesting that the Church just gives us the basics and encourages us to find the meat on our own. I take exception to that. The Church actually discourages that endeavor in many subtle and sometimes not so subtle ways.

[mfbukowski]

It's this hyperbole that I believe impedes our interaction. Concentration camp? That is plain silly and, as you say, difficult to take seriously.Well then I apol

Well then I apologize, but unfortunately you have provided no answer. 

 

Why would one obey anyone without a reason- simply because they were told to do something?

[mfbukowski]

Well I think we are now in rehash mode, and real life beckons.

[jkwilliams]

Well then I apologize, but unfortunately you have provided no answer. 

 

Why would one obey anyone without a reason- simply because they were told to do something?

 

I've been instructed on more than a few occasions by priesthood leaders to do things I felt quite strongly were wrong. Sometimes I quietly ignored the instruction; sometimes I just did what I was asked (once I put my life in danger); sometimes I expressed my disagreement and on being told I was wrong, I did what I was told; and on a few occasions I directly refused. Why did I think I should obey? Because I believed these men were inspired and had priesthood authority and stewardship over me, and I had been taught all my life that I should follow the counsel and instruction of my leaders. I do wish I had been more able to stand up for my own position, but that is not what I was taught.

 

And don't worry, I've already been mocked many times and told how stupid I was for believing that it was important to obey the counsel of my leaders. Apparently, all along I should have ignored or refused such counsel when I wanted to.

[Storm Rider]

I've been instructed on more than a few occasions by priesthood leaders to do things I felt quite strongly were wrong. Sometimes I quietly ignored the instruction; sometimes I just did what I was asked (once I put my life in danger); sometimes I expressed my disagreement and on being told I was wrong, I did what I was told; and on a few occasions I directly refused. Why did I think I should obey? Because I believed these men were inspired and had priesthood authority and stewardship over me, and I had been taught all my life that I should follow the counsel and instruction of my leaders. I do wish I had been more able to stand up for my own position, but that is not what I was taught.

 

And don't worry, I've already been mocked many times and told how stupid I was for believing that it was important to obey the counsel of my leaders. Apparently, all along I should have ignored or refused such counsel when I wanted to.

 

I think I understand your position, but I also think you have been wearing side-blinders. I have read too much Joseph and Brigham to think that I must follow blindly and without question. More importantly, I know who our Master is. Whom say ye that I am? .... Blessed art thou, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. How do we avoid this counsel and why would we in any circumstance. That is the teaching of the prophets and the Savior. If we have convinced ourselves otherwise, then let us take responsibility for our own lack of study, or ignorance, or our own misunderstanding. This is absolutely fundamental to being a disciple of Jesus Christ.  

[jkwilliams]

I think I understand your position, but I also think you have been wearing side-blinders. I have read too much Joseph and Brigham to think that I must follow blindly and without question. More importantly, I know who our Master is. Whom say ye that I am? .... Blessed art thou, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. How do we avoid this counsel and why would we in any circumstance. That is the teaching of the prophets and the Savior. If we have convinced ourselves otherwise, then let us take responsibility for our own lack of study, or ignorance, or our own misunderstanding. This is absolutely fundamental to being a disciple of Jesus Christ.  

 

This is probably not a subject I should be discussing, as it is a painful one. I think of all the times I swallowed my "pride" and did what I was asked, and now I'm told I should have known better and should have just ignored counsel, that I'm just imagining having been taught to value obedience. Oh, well. How we internalize teachings is a rather subjective matter, and that was mine.  

[Stone holm]

This is probably not a subject I should be discussing, as it is a painful one. I think of all the times I swallowed my "pride" and did what I was asked, and now I'm told I should have known better and should have just ignored counsel, that I'm just imagining having been taught to value obedience. Oh, well. How we internalize teachings is a rather subjective matter, and that was mine.

Of course you were taught that obedience was superior to sacrifice, of course you were strongly suggested to shut up and obey. It's just that you were supposed to say you understood that you prayed about it first. But if you received an impression that you weren't supposed to obey of course you were tuned into the wrong channel and you were supposed to keep praying until you had a strong prompting to agree with them or just gave up and agreed with them anyway.