When Is Doctrine Really Doctrine?

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Four words, you mean?

 

Unfortunately, I changed that phrase to "that tastes good to them."

 

I did this for rhetorical correctness: It is more consistent with the ingredients-cooking-stew analogy.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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 think you've misunderstood calmoriah or misunderstood what the Church does -- or perhaps both.

 

But perhaps I've misunderstood. Calmoriah can address this if she likes.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Richard Bushman employs a phrase I like that I think encompasses this thought. Bushman's phrase is "the routinization of charisma."

 

He, of course, was using the term charisma in its theological sense: a divinely bestowed power or gift, in this case, revelation, be it personal to the individual or general to the whole Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.  

I think I can understand John's view here.

 

Yes, we should seek and follow the guidance of the Spirit, but in all too many instances, with our mortal fallibility, men and women confuse the promptings of the Spirit with their own strongly felt desires, urges or pride. An example of this is the misguided young man who tells a young woman that he has received a revelation that she is to be his wife when, in reality, the source of that "revelation" is his own libido. Or a missionary's natural-man urge to sleep in instead of getting up and going out to work may be so strong that he misinterprets it as the Spirit telling him to stay in bed.

 

Leaders in the Church might sometimes counsel people against being in that circumstance, and this may be misinterpreted as an "obey at all costs" mentality.

 

Of course, a graphic example of the danger in that is the mindset that led to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, in which individuals unquestioningly obeyed the errant directives of local leaders.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

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.  

 

My objective is not to rub your nose in it, but to help you see that we each must take responsibility for our own actions and feelings. I think we need to find balance through building a strong relationship with the Holy Spirit and understanding or recognizing his still, small voice.

 

I remember being in a solemn assembly with Elder Delbert E. Stapley many years ago. The meeting went well, but at the end some comments were made that I did not sense were correct. I ignored them and did not consider them again. 

 

There are times in our lives when we can be quite confident in our own choices and other times when we are not so confident. Regardless, we remain the responsible party and not anyone else that is providing the stimulus. 

 

The fact that you are human and you choice to focus on obedience is not wrong or right; rather there are consequences for such a choice. We learn lessons by our choices. For me, the take away is to be humble enough to listen to the Spirit and strong enough to know that you need your own testimony.

 

As an aside, you obviously worked in SLC. I did not do well in Utah; there is a different breed of LDS there that does not mix well with my idea of being LDS. Again, it is not wrong or right, just different than what I choose to be around. The absolute last place I would ever consciously choose to work is the Church.  I tip my hat to anyone that can do that and remain faithful and happy.  

[Storm Rider]

I think I can understand John's view here.

 

Yes, we should seek and follow the guidance of the Spirit, but in all too many instances, with our mortal fallibility, men and women confuse the promptings of the Spirit with their own strongly felt desires, urges or pride. An example of this is the misguided young man who tells a young woman that he has received a revelation that she is to be his wife when, in reality, the source of that "revelation" is his own libido. Or a missionary's natural-man urge to sleep in instead of getting up and going out to work may be so strong that he misinterprets it as the Spirit telling him to stay in bed.

 

Leaders in the Church might sometimes counsel people against being in that circumstance, and this may be misinterpreted as an "obey at all costs" mentality.

 

Of course, a graphic example of the danger in that is the mindset that led to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, in which individuals unquestioningly obeyed the errant directives of local leaders.

 

I don't see any disagreement between what we have said. The one is a person who does not recognize the promptings of the Spirit; the other is an example of an individual without self-discipline. 

 

My counsel over and over to my own children is to constantly seek the Spirit; learn to recognize his promptings; learn to ignore our own passions by learning self-discipline; avoid anyone or anything that counsels you to ignore the Spirit's promptings regardless of who they are. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't see any disagreement between what we have said. The one is a person who does not recognize the promptings of the Spirit; the other is an example of an individual without self-discipline. 

 

What they have in common is to mistake personal appetites and tendencies for the guidance of the Spirit.

 

My counsel over and over to my own children is to constantly seek the Spirit; learn to recognize his promptings; learn to ignore our own passions by learning self-discipline; avoid anyone or anything that counsels you to ignore the Spirit's promptings regardless of who they are. 

 

 

It's not likely they will put it in those terms; they are more apt to try to persuade you that what you have felt is not the Spirit's promptings. In some instances they could be right.

[Scott Lloyd]

As an aside, you obviously worked in SLC. I did not do well in Utah; there is a different breed of LDS there that does not mix well with my idea of being LDS. Again, it is not wrong or right, just different than what I choose to be around.

 

 

 

This sort of attitude always causes me to bristle. At once, it disparages me, my extended family, my neighbors and ward members and most of my present associates, people I grew up with, people I have known who have since passed on.

 

As with most stereotypes I find it a gross distortion of reality. I see good Latter-day Saints everywhere, regardless of where they live.

 

The absolute last place I would ever consciously choose to work is the Church.  I tip my hat to anyone that can do that and remain faithful and happy.  

 

I don't work for the Church, but in my work I associate routinely with those who do. Almost without exception I find them to be of sterling character and quality.

 

Whatever his experience has been, I don't recall having seen John put down his former work associates. Maybe he has, but I just haven't seen it.

[jkwilliams]

This sort of attitude always causes me to bristle. At once, it disparages me, my extended family, my neighbors and ward members and most of my present associates, people I grew up with, people I have known who have since passed on.

 

As with most stereotypes I find it a gross distortion of reality. I see good Latter-day Saints everywhere, regardless of where they live.

 

I don't work for the Church, but in my work I associate routinely with those who do. Almost without exception I find them to be of sterling character and quality.

 

Whatever his experience has been, I don't recall having seen John put down his former work associates. Maybe he has, but I just haven't seen it.

 

I enjoyed working for the church (for the record, I am not from Utah), and most of the people I worked with were great people.

 

And lest anyone misunderstand, I am not saying the church teaches blind obedience.

 

I realized last night that I do not need anyone's approval or validation for how I lived my life as a member of the church or how I live my life now. I feel a bit foolish for having invited that in this thread and others. It's time to stop doing that.

[Storm Rider]

This sort of attitude always causes me to bristle. At once, it disparages me, my extended family, my neighbors and ward members and most of my present associates, people I grew up with, people I have known who have since passed on.

 

As with most stereotypes I find it a gross distortion of reality. I see good Latter-day Saints everywhere, regardless of where they live.

 

I don't work for the Church, but in my work I associate routinely with those who do. Almost without exception I find them to be of sterling character and quality.

 

Whatever his experience has been, I don't recall having seen John put down his former work associates. Maybe he has, but I just haven't seen it.

 

I was not speaking in absolutes; our family is large, pioneer and firmly established in Utah. My comments were for those people you would expect them to be about. There is no need to take offense where none is/was intended.

 

My comments about working for the Church remain; as for me, I am not interested.  Others feel differently and will find great enjoyment; to each his own. 

[Stone holm]

This sort of attitude always causes me to bristle. At once, it disparages me, my extended family, my neighbors and ward members and most of my present associates, people I grew up with, people I have known who have since passed on.

 

As with most stereotypes I find it a gross distortion of reality. I see good Latter-day Saints everywhere, regardless of where they live.

 

I don't work for the Church, but in my work I associate routinely with those who do. Almost without exception I find them to be of sterling character and quality.

 

Whatever his experience has been, I don't recall having seen John put down his former work associates. Maybe he has, but I just haven't seen it.

Well, given the number of times people have pointed this out to you, I would have thought by now you would have quit bristling and possibly come to the conclusion that there was some truth in what they were saying.

[Buckeye]

This sort of attitude always causes me to bristle. At once, it disparages me, my extended family, my neighbors and ward members and most of my present associates, people I grew up with, people I have known who have since passed on.

 

As with most stereotypes I find it a gross distortion of reality. I see good Latter-day Saints everywhere, regardless of where they live.

 

I don't work for the Church, but in my work I associate routinely with those who do. Almost without exception I find them to be of sterling character and quality.

 

Whatever his experience has been, I don't recall having seen John put down his former work associates. Maybe he has, but I just haven't seen it.

 

I'll come to Scott's defense on this one.  Yes, there are some differences between Utah and "mission field" mormons.  But those differences are due to regional culture and the inherent difference between cultures where a religion is majority and where it is minority.  The people who live in Utah themselves are just as good as any other group on the planet.  Some of my best friends live there, including a sister.

 

I've lived most all of my life outside of Utah (though I was born there and studied at BYU).  I do find some weird hostility to "Utah-mormons" in some of the wards I've lived in and I do my best to shut it down.  For instance, a few years ago in my current ward a sister approached my wife and said, "I just learned you grew up in Ohio.  I always thought you were from Utah.  I like you so much better now."  While the statement was said as a compliment, I took offense (yes, I chose to be offended).  I did my best to correct the situation.  As with so many other prejudices, I find sunshine is the best disinfectant.  Simply ask, "what is so wrong about Utah mormons?"  The person will typcially back down on their own and realize there is not wrong with them at all.  Then tell them of some of the great Utah mormons you know, such as Thomas Monson and Henry Eyring.

[Calm]

I think you've misunderstood calmoriah or misunderstood what the Church does -- or perhaps both.

 

But perhaps I've misunderstood. Calmoriah can address this if she likes.

He did.  I think I was pretty clear and that it took some effort to take it where he did so I didn't feel the need to respond.

[Calm]

I'll come to Scott's defense on this one.  Yes, there are some differences between Utah and "mission field" mormons.  But those differences are due to regional culture and the inherent difference between cultures where a religion is majority and where it is minority.  The people who live in Utah themselves are just as good as any other group on the planet.  Some of my best friends live there, including a sister.

Well said, Buckeye (out of points so sorry about that).

 

I am not from Utah, but have lived here off and on and while I hate the climate, the people are great.  Are there some annoying ones?  Sure, there are everywhere.  It is always strange to me when those elsewhere are given a pass while those in Utah are held to a different standard.  If one is capable of ignoring the jerks outside of Utah, surely one should be able to do the same in Utah.

[jkwilliams]

I'll come to Scott's defense on this one.  Yes, there are some differences between Utah and "mission field" mormons.  But those differences are due to regional culture and the inherent difference between cultures where a religion is majority and where it is minority.  The people who live in Utah themselves are just as good as any other group on the planet.  Some of my best friends live there, including a sister.

 

I've lived most all of my life outside of Utah (though I was born there and studied at BYU).  I do find some weird hostility to "Utah-mormons" in some of the wards I've lived in and I do my best to shut it down.  For instance, a few years ago in my current ward a sister approached my wife and said, "I just learned you grew up in Ohio.  I always thought you were from Utah.  I like you so much better now."  While the statement was said as a compliment, I took offense (yes, I chose to be offended).  I did my best to correct the situation.  As with so many other prejudices, I find sunshine is the best disinfectant.  Simply ask, "what is so wrong about Utah mormons?"  The person will typcially back down on their own and realize there is not wrong with them at all.  Then tell them of some of the great Utah mormons you know, such as Thomas Monson and Henry Eyring.

I like Utahns. I've lived most of my life outside of Utah, and I don't see a lot of difference between Utah Mormons and other US Mormons. Yes, there are some minor cultural peculiarities and some consequences of having the LDS church permeate everything from schools to work to politics, but the stereotypes are way off, IMO.

I will say that I'm glad I don't live there anymore because, since I went through my crisis of faith, I felt like I had to keep a very low profile and avoid any conversations about religion. People talked about church all the time at work, at my kids' activities, even at my mechanic, and I always figured it was best to not talk about it. Here the subject never comes up, which is really nice.

[Stone holm]

I'll come to Scott's defense on this one.  Yes, there are some differences between Utah and "mission field" mormons.  But those differences are due to regional culture and the inherent difference between cultures where a religion is majority and where it is minority.  The people who live in Utah themselves are just as good as any other group on the planet.  Some of my best friends live there, including a sister.

 

I've lived most all of my life outside of Utah (though I was born there and studied at BYU).  I do find some weird hostility to "Utah-mormons" in some of the wards I've lived in and I do my best to shut it down.  For instance, a few years ago in my current ward a sister approached my wife and said, "I just learned you grew up in Ohio.  I always thought you were from Utah.  I like you so much better now."  While the statement was said as a compliment, I took offense (yes, I chose to be offended).  I did my best to correct the situation.  As with so many other prejudices, I find sunshine is the best disinfectant.  Simply ask, "what is so wrong about Utah mormons?"  The person will typcially back down on their own and realize there is not wrong with them at all.  Then tell them of some of the great Utah mormons you know, such as Thomas Monson and Henry Eyring.

 

"a different breed" does not necessarily imply that they are a bad breed -- just that they tend to be different.  I have had Western Mormons who have lived out here or in the Midwest indicate the same thing.  I remember being shocked when back in the late '70's a brother indicated that there tended to be a difference in testimonies.  He said out west active Mormon men tended to have the real strong testimonies because they frequently had served fulltime missions and the women hadn't, but in the midwest the general tendency was towards the opposite, generally the women had the stronger testimonies.  I suppose that is changing over time as more and more western young women serve missions.  He may have been just explaining why his wife seemed to be on the verge of inactivity all the time.  I remember having come back from St. George, Utah -- and making the mistake that of saying that I had a little time getting used to the difference in the smell because so many people were burning coal -- a member of the Stake Presidency took offense, he was from St. George, and denied that there was any such smell.  I thought, okay, Utahns are touchy on anything remotely considered to be critical.

[Stone holm]

He did.  I think I was pretty clear and that it took some effort to take it where he did so I didn't feel the need to respond.

 

Really you think so?  You have never heard the "milk before meat" phrase invoked, or "we need to stick to the basics", or horror stories being told about people who form small study groups going astray so the Bishop really needs to approve all study groups and what they are studying.  There are a multitude of ways the Church tends to subtley discourage studying outside the approved manuals and scriptures.  This is no big shocking revelation, and it probably makes sense as a crowd control approach.

[mfbukowski]

Four words, you mean?

 

Unfortunately, I changed that phrase to "that tastes good to them."

 

I did this for rhetorical correctness: It is more consistent with the ingredients-cooking-stew analogy.

Sounds tasty to me!

 

Someday I might learn how to count.

Edited December 12, 2013 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

Sounds tasty to me!

 

Someday I might learn how to count.

 

Counting to four is the hardest I guess.  My 2 year old always counts, "one, two, free, nine, five..."

Edited December 13, 2013 by stemelbow

[jkwilliams]

Counting to four is the hardest I guess.  My 2 year old always counts, "one, two, free, nine, five..."

 

That's how I count, too, but then most of my degrees are in the humanities.

[Ahab]

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.

Where oh where did I see something that said something like, oh, here it is:

 

Doctrine and Covenants 121:45

www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121.45?lang=eng

The Doctrine and Covenants. Section 121. ... and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the e dews from heaven. ...

 

 

especially this part:

45 Let thy ^abowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let ^bvirtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy ^cconfidence wax strong in the ^dpresence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the ^edews from heaven.

46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant ^acompanion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of ^brighteousness and truth; and thy ^cdominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

 

 

You can learn as much from God as you are able to handle, and then some.

[canard78]

Just to add to my frustration is the impossibility of pinning down very little in Mormonism

We have prophets as mentioned by a poster earlier that Adam's sin versus later saying it was not a Sin (no worries we can explain it away)

We have Quotes that Doctrine doesn't change and then we change our Doctrine (No problem, sometimes Doctrine is beliefs aka - dictionary definition and sometimes it means eternal truth revealed by God) but then you have to compare that with Elder Christofferson saying our Doctrine comes by revelation (he is setting the definiton, not me). But we simply explain it away as he is not describing the same Doctrine that Elder Anderson is describing when he says our Doctrine is what 15 men teach unitedly and it is not hard to find.

I love Mormonism and I am here for the long run (barring another revelation from God where he asks me to go) But I am frustrated as all heck that we can't pin Mormonism down on most anything. There are loopholes, allowances, deference that must be paid as to limit one from questioning to the ends of a logical argument, there are scholars and apologist who defend the Church with great answers only the Church itself won't stand behind those same answers, there are contradictions at every turn only they really are not contradictions because same words have different meanings, and he meant this, and she meant that.....

Again no offense to Elder Anderson, but our Doctrine is darn hard to find and define. Leaders always say our Doctrine can be found easily but none of them actually define it as it can't be done. We can't even tell if the PH ban came from God or if it was an invention of Brigham Young or some other leader. And the Church doesn't know either, but it is easy to find.......

We don't even have Grace nailed Down in terms of defining in any way that the majority of the Church would agree

We don't grasp justification vs sanctification (made clean vs the mighty change)

the majority of members don't have a clue about their faith's history and theology and a large chunk of the rest are in many respects wrong.

Our manuals are a constant nourishment of MILK and my spirit has grown somewhat lactose intolerant. I need to be fed deeper and I personally think we only feed fluff 95% (and the other 5% comes from people like me opening our mouth in Sunday School or PH/RS) of the time to the lowest common denominator

I feel your pain DB. In the end we're all cafeteria Mormons who pick an choose from the smorgasbord of doctrines. Grace/works... Follow your leaders/think for yourself... Do your family history/go home teaching/serve in the community/go out with the missionaries/have inter-faith relations/spend quality time with your family. We all make our own priorities and emphasise different teachings/doctrines.

Remember that many people are very happy with the milk you describe. The word of wisdom describes itself as designed for the weakest of the saints. The scriptures talk of not running faster than we have strength. That means that some people have jog when they could sprint if we are going to stay as a group to allow for the slow ones at the back. I say that as someone who huffs and puffs along with the stragglers on many aspects of the gospel. I'm grateful for the willingness of others to slow the pace for my benefit.

In other ways I wish the church would run or change course faster.

We're like a great ocean liner. We can't do sudden changes of pace or u-turns. We have to accept change by small degrees. I see a leadership who have at least some desire to do that. We can't do sudden course alterations otherwise too many people will be jolted overboard.

[DBMormon]

I feel your pain DB. In the end we're all cafeteria Mormons who pick an choose from the smorgasbord of doctrines. Grace/works... Follow your leaders/think for yourself... Do your family history/go home teaching/serve in the community/go out with the missionaries/have inter-faith relations/spend quality time with your family. We all make our own priorities and emphasise different teachings/doctrines.

Remember that many people are very happy with the milk you describe. The word of wisdom describes itself as designed for the weakest of the saints. The scriptures talk of not running faster than we have strength. That means that some people have jog when they could sprint if we are going to stay as a group to allow for the slow ones at the back. I say that as someone who huffs and puffs along with the stragglers on many aspects of the gospel. I'm grateful for the willingness of others to slow the pace for my benefit.

In other ways I wish the church would run or change course faster.

We're like a great ocean liner. We can't do sudden changes of pace or u-turns. We have to accept change by small degrees. I see a leadership who have at least some desire to do that. We can't do sudden course alterations otherwise too many people will be jolted overboard.

 

Except in Church I am never permitted to run, rather I have to slow down to everyone's jog.  Church is set up to dissuade running in Church.  It is not like intellectually Church curriculum tries to meet everyone where they are, but rather hands out only milk.  and it also when people have their own sour milk, it has very little practices in place to take their sour milk away and give them correct meat and milk.  The system is set up to allow people who teach the most false doctrine and speculation to feel empowered and those who see through the glass less darkly to feel ostracized and isolated

[canard78]

Except in Church I am never permitted to run, rather I have to slow down to everyone's jog.  Church is set up to dissuade running in Church.  It is not like intellectually Church curriculum tries to meet everyone where they are, but rather hands out only milk.  and it also when people have their own sour milk, it has very little practices in place to take their sour milk away and give them correct meat and milk.  The system is set up to allow people who teach the most false doctrine and speculation to feel empowered and those who see through the glass less darkly to feel ostracized and isolated

 

You're assuming you see through the glass less darkly than your fellow-members. I don't make that assumption. You may be looking at a different part of the tapestry or holding a different part of the elephant, but don't make the assumption that you're so much superior than those who prefer to focus on the so-called small and simple aspects of the gospel. I appreciate your frustration, but can I say, as a (virtual) friend that your sense of superiority is a little unbecoming.

[Stone holm]

Except in Church I am never permitted to run, rather I have to slow down to everyone's jog.  Church is set up to dissuade running in Church.  It is not like intellectually Church curriculum tries to meet everyone where they are, but rather hands out only milk.  and it also when people have their own sour milk, it has very little practices in place to take their sour milk away and give them correct meat and milk.  The system is set up to allow people who teach the most false doctrine and speculation to feel empowered and those who see through the glass less darkly to feel ostracized and isolated

I disagree with that last part. It is set up to provide only milk, but it designed to discourage any speculation or actually any study or research beyond the milk provided. It refers to such research as delving into the mysteries one of the major sources of apostasy ... Which of course kind of goes against what Joseph taught, but what the heck those were different times, right now we need superficially educated sheeple...right up to where 70 start figuring out what they don't know and start apostasizing.