When Is Doctrine Really Doctrine?

[DBMormon]

Kevin, Thanks I am going to read it in about 30 seconds.  Your long replies need time and reflection to read and ponder, I can't always do that in the back and forth venting that sometimes goes on here with me

 

When Elder Anderson and Elder Christofferson try to define Doctrine does that bother you?

Does our reluctance to give members more realistic way to view the Church frustrate you?

When certain leaders impose their paradigm on you and put their thumb down on you pretty hard, does that bother you? 

 

Real questions I wonder about, and curious what others think of these as well!

[CV75]

(see below)

Edited December 11, 2013 by CV75

[CV75]

When Elder Anderson and Elder Christofferson try to define Doctrine does that bother you?

No, because I think I understand the definition in the context they are using it for. You used a valid definition for the purposes of this thread; they used valid definitions suited for their purposes. Plus, Elder Cristofferson especially uses the 3 Nephi 11 reference.

 

Does our reluctance to give members more realistic way to view the Church frustrate you?

I’m not sure what this means, since Alma 32:35 adequately describes an inspired take on what is “real.” What would be “more realistic?”

 

When certain leaders impose their paradigm on you and put their thumb down on you pretty hard, does that bother you?

I haven’t had this experience (by "thumbs down on," do you mean “rejection, refusal, or disapproval” or “squelching?”). But if I did, it wouldn’t bother me to the point of putting the doctrine of Christ aside or utilizing that which He said isn’t His doctrine. Edited December 11, 2013 by CV75

[jkwilliams]

Kevin, Thanks I am going to read it in about 30 seconds.  Your long replies need time and reflection to read and ponder, I can't always do that in the back and forth venting that sometimes goes on here with me

 

When Elder Anderson and Elder Christofferson try to define Doctrine does that bother you?

Does our reluctance to give members more realistic way to view the Church frustrate you?

When certain leaders impose their paradigm on you and put their thumb down on you pretty hard, does that bother you? 

 

Real questions I wonder about, and curious what others think of these as well!

 

I understand where Louis Midgley is coming from, and as I said, I agree with him and the scriptures that "the" doctrine is the doctrine of Christ. However, given the church's historical use of the word "doctrine," it's difficult to say that it is the only doctrine there is and that anyone asserting anything else as doctrine is mistaken. Within that all-encompassing doctrine there are teachings that the church has, since the beginning, declared to be doctrine. Thus, the Guide to the Scriptures defines the Doctrine of Christ as "the principles and teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ." That casts a pretty wide net, IMO.

 

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that some people see the doctrines as a checklist of beliefs and teachings that must be adhered to (fundamentalists like checklists like this), whereas others see only one doctrine as authoritative and everything else as up for debate. I don't find either extreme helpful. I would suggest that there's a middle ground: There are a lot of authoritative teachings of the prophets that are binding on the church, just as there are a lot of unsettled teachings where church members are free to interpret as they wish.

[Rivers]

It is easier to pin jello to a wall than to pin down what is LDS doctrine and what is not.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, Thanks I am going to read it in about 30 seconds.  Your long replies need time and reflection to read and ponder, I can't always do that in the back and forth venting that sometimes goes on here with me

 

When Elder Anderson and Elder Christofferson try to define Doctrine does that bother you?

You're always welcome Bishop.

I'm not seriously bothered because quite honestly, I'm not seriously invested in their agreeing with me on the issue. I understand that there is a social definition of Mormon Doctrine out there, that most people have the J preference and want to have things closed and settled, and that different people are at different Positions along the Perry Scheme. If I'm supposed to be tolerant and understanding in regard to a wide range of social issues and behaviors, why not extend that tolerance and understanding to sincere men who are doing their best to serve the Lord?

There are other people that annoy and bother me much more. But in most cases, I have not formally raised my hand in a covenant to sustain them. And of course, I know what sustain means, which also turns out to diffuse a great deal of frustration.

I remain impressed with Midgley's RBBM essay from 1989. I understand that not everyone has read it. But I have, and it managed to change me. I still think it one of the best and most important things to appear in the Review.

 

Does our reluctance to give members more realistic way to view the Church frustrate you?

Does the question rest on a consideration of the Joseph Smith Papers project, Rough Stone Rolling, my 23 volumes of the FARMS Review, the Tragedy at Mountain Meadows book, Nibley's 29 part series in the Improvement Era that included the first publication of the papyri, or just a few of the lesser Sunday School or Priesthood manuals? A member on my mission let me read Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon, which was originally the 1957 Priesthood manual. Sometimes, I have found, the injunction to "Seek out of the best books," does actually include institutional church materials, but even where it doesn't, nothing in the institutional materials or Sunday School or Priesthood meetings that I don't like prevents me from reading other things.

Large institutions cannot respond as easily as smaller groups or individuals. I'm realistic about that. I'm mildly annoyed sometimes, but since I can get the good stuff on my own, I can't say that I'm seriously frustrated. I can also remember how much easier it is to find good stuff now. I used to have to drive to bookstores and libraries, and root around the stacks, and spend time by Xerox machines. (Pause and think about the Four Yorkshire men sketch.)

When certain leaders impose their paradigm on you and put their thumb down on you pretty hard, does that bother you? 

 

Real questions I wonder about, and curious what others think of these as well!

Again, I know what "sustain" actually means. I think the word is well chosen for the whole range of meanings. Shauna had us look up the word in a good dictionary, and that understanding had proven to be wonderfully enlightening and liberating.

And I have a good working understanding of paradigms as being based on "standard examples that embody a set of assumptions, methods, problem field, and standards of solution."

Back in California, I had an Elder's Quorum President release me from being the EQ teacher on grounds that I went off the manual one too many times. After I got off the phone, I looked at Shauna and said, "I've been released from callings before, but that is the first time I've ever been fired." Shortly thereafter I moved to Kansas, and was soon called to be the EQ teacher, and then the High Priest teacher on grounds that they wanted "interesting lessons."

So, which of the these stories should I take as my paradigmatic example with respect to describing the church as a whole? Does it make a difference if I count both kinds of stories?

I do understand very well about how paradigms work. I think Jesus wants us to understand as well, when he says in Mark, about the parable of the sower: "Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?" What do we do with the words that come?

I think of Joseph Smith saying, "I want the liberty to believe as I please," and he grants all people the same privilege. Including the opinionated. Everytime I write something, or raise my hand in Sunday School, or share a story in a 12 step meeting, I'm offering some experience, insight, hope, or opinion, as paradigmatic. That may be my thumb coming down on someone. If I find myself disagreeing with someone, I can push back, or step back, or step up, depending on the particular situation. None of are finished products, but are all involved in a long term process.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited December 11, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[mfbukowski]

I can see why you misunderstood.

Words are important to me, and I assume they are important to others, but I am not always correct in that assumption.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not seriously bothered because quite honestly, I'm not seriously invested in their agreeing with me on the issue. I understand that there is a social definition of Mormon Doctrine out there, that most people have the J preference and want to have things closed and settled, and that different people are at different Positions along the Perry Scheme. If I'm supposed to be tolerant and understanding in regard to a wide range of social issues and behaviors, why not extend that tolerance and understanding to sincere men who are doing their best to serve the Lord?

Precisely nails it for me as well.  I just wish I could write as well as you do!

 

Again I would like to thank you for that Midgley quote- it says it all.

[Scott Lloyd]

Words are important to me, and I assume they are important to others, but I am not always correct in that assumption.

I appreciate that sentiment.

 

And, yes, I agree with evangelical fervor that words ought to be important to everyone.

[jkwilliams]

Words are important to me, and I assume they are important to others, but I am not always correct in that assumption.

 

They are important to me, as well. I intended to say that the 12, when they instituted Correlation, established the doctrinal guidelines used by the Correlation committee. I did not intend to suggest that the Correlation committee itself establishes doctrine, so I am sorry for the confusion. I am trying very much to communicate clearly without the snide digs that have so often accompanied our interaction. I hope I am not alone in that.

[jkwilliams]

You're always welcome Bishop.

I'm not seriously bothered because quite honestly, I'm not seriously invested in their agreeing with me on the issue. I understand that there is a social definition of Mormon Doctrine out there, that most people have the J preference and want to have things closed and settled, and that different people are at different Positions along the Perry Scheme. If I'm supposed to be tolerant and understanding in regard to a wide range of social issues and behaviors, why not extend that tolerance and understanding to sincere men who are doing their best to serve the Lord?

There are other people that annoy and bother me much more. But in most cases, I have not formally raised my hand in a covenant to sustain them. And of course, I know what sustain means, which also turns out to diffuse a great deal of frustration.

I remain impressed with Midgley's RBBM essay from 1989. I understand that not everyone has read it. But I have, and it managed to change me. I still think it one of the best and most important things to appear in the Review.

 

Does the question rest on a consideration of the Joseph Smith Papers project, Rough Stone Rolling, my 23 volumes of the FARMS Review, the Tragedy at Mountain Meadows book, Nibley's 29 part series in the Improvement Era that included the first publication of the papyri, or just a few of the lesser Sunday School or Priesthood manuals? A member on my mission let me read Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon, which was originally the 1957 Priesthood manual. Sometimes, I have found, the injunction to "Seek out of the best books," does actually include institutional church materials, but even where it doesn't, nothing in the institutional materials or Sunday School or Priesthood meetings that I don't like prevents me from reading other things.

Large institutions cannot respond as easily as smaller groups or individuals. I'm realistic about that. I'm mildly annoyed sometimes, but since I can get the good stuff on my own, I can't say that I'm seriously frustrated. I can also remember how much easier it is to find good stuff now. I used to have to drive to bookstores and libraries, and root around the stacks, and spend time by Xerox machines. (Pause and think about the Four Yorkshire men sketch.)

Again, I know what "sustain" actually means. I think the word is well chosen for the whole range of meanings. Shauna had us look up the word in a good dictionary, and that understanding had proven to be wonderfully enlightening and liberating.

And I have a good working understanding of paradigms as being based on "standard examples that embody a set of assumptions, methods, problem field, and standards of solution."

Back in California, I had an Elder's Quorum President release me from being the EQ teacher on grounds that I went off the manual one too many times. After I got off the phone, I looked at Shauna and said, "I've been released from callings before, but that is the first time I've ever been fired." Shortly thereafter I moved to Kansas, and was soon called to be the EQ teacher, and then the High Priest teacher on grounds that they wanted "interesting lessons."

So, which of the these stories should I take as my paradigmatic example with respect to describing the church as a whole? Does it make a difference if I count both kinds of stories?

I do understand very well about how paradigms work. I think Jesus wants us to understand as well, when he says in Mark, about the parable of the sower: "Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?" What do we do with the words that come?

I think of Joseph Smith saying, "I want the liberty to believe as I please," and he grants all people the same privilege. Including the opinionated. Everytime I write something, or raise my hand in Sunday School, or share a story in a 12 step meeting, I'm offering some experience, insight, hope, or opinion, as paradigmatic. That may be my thumb coming down on someone. If I find myself disagreeing with someone, I can push back, or step back, or step up, depending on the particular situation. None of are finished products, but are all involved in a long term process.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

 

Your experience is much like mine. When I was Gospel Doctrine instructor way back in college, I told my roommate that I didn't like the lesson in the manual and wanted to come up with something better. I made the mistake of asking him what he thought of my ideas. He almost resorted to blows, he was so angry with me.

 

I think there is a lot of leeway about what we as members are free to believe, but I do have a hard time with the notion that there is only one single authoritative doctrine. Oh, well, I suppose it's OK to disagree.

[mfbukowski]

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

On the other hand, I hate to mention a specific group, but the Catholics have everything defined perfectly, but the definitions are inherently "the philosophies of men" because we always interpret the Lord in the present Zeitgeist.  We cannot help it.  So the poor Catholics (sorry) are saddled with 12th century philosophy forever because that is when doctrines like transubstantiation and the Trinity were interpreted.

 

I think frankly, that our system is perfect- we just have to understand the nature of truth- that indeed what we call "truth" is a cultural phenomenon which changes with the times.  Truth is a property of sentences- not of things.  It is changing in it's very nature- indeed it is socially constructed.

 

Once we understand that, all the anxiety goes away.

 

There is nothing to fear about ambiguity- as I said before, we expect science to change regularly- why not religious truth as well?

 

When we receive "further light and knowledge" such changes are not only expected but necessary.  We just need to let go of fundamentalism and understand that truth is cultural.

 

Then everything gets better!

[Scott Lloyd]

 I am trying very much to communicate clearly without the snide digs that have so often accompanied our interaction. I hope I am not alone in that.

I've noticed that and think it commendable.

[jkwilliams]

 

Then everything gets better!

 

Unless the truth makes you unhappy.

[Scott Lloyd]

Unless the truth makes you unhappy.

Ultimately, the truth make you free.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

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.

[jkwilliams]

Ultimately, the truth make you free.

 

I have to say that I have found happiness in following the truth as I understand it. No matter how painful it's been, it's been worth it. I suspect most people here would say the same.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have to say that I have found happiness in following the truth as I understand it. No matter how painful it's been, it's been worth it. I suspect most people here would say the same.

I would agree but express the caveat that I hope they recognize there may well be truth that they have yet to learn and embrace.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

Kevin, Thanks I am going to read it in about 30 seconds.  Your long replies need time and reflection to read and ponder, I can't always do that in the back and forth venting that sometimes goes on here with me

 

When Elder Anderson and Elder Christofferson try to define Doctrine does that bother you?

Does our reluctance to give members more realistic way to view the Church frustrate you?

When certain leaders impose their paradigm on you and put their thumb down on you pretty hard, does that bother you? 

 

Real questions I wonder about, and curious what others think of these as well!

 

I always like Kevin's posts.  It strikes me as a little odd that he still has less than 3,000 posts.  It feels like more.  But maybe that's because he is judicious and tends to post lengthly well thought out responses, unlike me. 

 

As to dealing with leaders, I try to imagine all leaders as a deacons quorum president.  Be patient and loving, even when they step on your toes.  And don't assume they have any more idea what they are doing than the 12-year old who lines his peers up to pass the sacrament.  They just have bigger shoes. 

 

Also, remember Newton's first law of gospel fellowship: if someone reacts overly harsh to you, it's probably because something you did or said bothered them to an equal degree.  We are all rough stones banging against each other.  None of us can polish ourselves.  We can only polish others.  Or something.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Buckeye

[jkwilliams]

I would agree with the caveat that I hope they recognize there may well be truth that they have yet to learn and embrace.

 

Of course. Truth is a journey, not a destination.

[Stone holm]

Which means the meat never has the Church's sanction

 

Well to paraphrase the late President, "We don't emphasize that much...."

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course. Truth is a journey, not a destination.

I would call it an accumulation.

[stemelbow]

You're always welcome Bishop.

I'm not seriously bothered because quite honestly, I'm not seriously invested in their agreeing with me on the issue. I understand that there is a social definition of Mormon Doctrine out there, that most people have the J preference and want to have things closed and settled, and that different people are at different Positions along the Perry Scheme. If I'm supposed to be tolerant and understanding in regard to a wide range of social issues and behaviors, why not extend that tolerance and understanding to sincere men who are doing their best to serve the Lord?

There are other people that annoy and bother me much more. But in most cases, I have not formally raised my hand in a covenant to sustain them. And of course, I know what sustain means, which also turns out to diffuse a great deal of frustration.

I remain impressed with Midgley's RBBM essay from 1989. I understand that not everyone has read it. But I have, and it managed to change me. I still think it one of the best and most important things to appear in the Review.

 

Does the question rest on a consideration of the Joseph Smith Papers project, Rough Stone Rolling, my 23 volumes of the FARMS Review, the Tragedy at Mountain Meadows book, Nibley's 29 part series in the Improvement Era that included the first publication of the papyri, or just a few of the lesser Sunday School or Priesthood manuals? A member on my mission let me read Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon, which was originally the 1957 Priesthood manual. Sometimes, I have found, the injunction to "Seek out of the best books," does actually include institutional church materials, but even where it doesn't, nothing in the institutional materials or Sunday School or Priesthood meetings that I don't like prevents me from reading other things.

Large institutions cannot respond as easily as smaller groups or individuals. I'm realistic about that. I'm mildly annoyed sometimes, but since I can get the good stuff on my own, I can't say that I'm seriously frustrated. I can also remember how much easier it is to find good stuff now. I used to have to drive to bookstores and libraries, and root around the stacks, and spend time by Xerox machines. (Pause and think about the Four Yorkshire men sketch.)

Again, I know what "sustain" actually means. I think the word is well chosen for the whole range of meanings. Shauna had us look up the word in a good dictionary, and that understanding had proven to be wonderfully enlightening and liberating.

And I have a good working understanding of paradigms as being based on "standard examples that embody a set of assumptions, methods, problem field, and standards of solution."

Back in California, I had an Elder's Quorum President release me from being the EQ teacher on grounds that I went off the manual one too many times. After I got off the phone, I looked at Shauna and said, "I've been released from callings before, but that is the first time I've ever been fired." Shortly thereafter I moved to Kansas, and was soon called to be the EQ teacher, and then the High Priest teacher on grounds that they wanted "interesting lessons."

So, which of the these stories should I take as my paradigmatic example with respect to describing the church as a whole? Does it make a difference if I count both kinds of stories?

I do understand very well about how paradigms work. I think Jesus wants us to understand as well, when he says in Mark, about the parable of the sower: "Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?" What do we do with the words that come?

I think of Joseph Smith saying, "I want the liberty to believe as I please," and he grants all people the same privilege. Including the opinionated. Everytime I write something, or raise my hand in Sunday School, or share a story in a 12 step meeting, I'm offering some experience, insight, hope, or opinion, as paradigmatic. That may be my thumb coming down on someone. If I find myself disagreeing with someone, I can push back, or step back, or step up, depending on the particular situation. None of are finished products, but are all involved in a long term process.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

 

I told them when they most recently called me that I've been released for going outside the manual in the past.  I've been teaching Sunday school and EQ for years in 5 different wards.  Sometimes they like me enough to keep me and sometimes they send me packing.  Whatever, I think I stink but it's more exciting to me then sitting in EQ reading different paragraphs from the manual and asking ourselves how we can be more faithful.  I think I'm getting some scrutinizing eye lately though.  The past couple of lessons I've gotten the whole bishopric, a stake Presidency member and a high council guy sitting in my EQ class none with much comment at all.  oops.  I guess it may be coming soon.  I've been getting a weird vibe from the EQP.  I just keep going.  I had a friend in the EQ presidency until two months or so ago--as he got pulled into Young Mens.  He said, "The thing that stinks about getting this new calling is I won't get to sit in on your husband's EQ lessons any more" as reported by my wife.  He's just being nice but I try my darndest and the amount of buzz and participation on the weeks I teach compared to otherwise is night and day.  Of course those who most often comment when I don't teach usually remain silent when I am teaching. 

 

Oh well.  I'm still teaching the 12-13 year olds in Sunday School.  Well, that might not last too long either.  I'm getting the SSP sitting in my class the past few weeks. 

[Buckeye]

I told them when they most recently called me that I've been released for going outside the manual in the past.  I've been teaching Sunday school and EQ for years in 5 different wards.  Sometimes they like me enough to keep me and sometimes they send me packing.  Whatever, I think I stink but it's more exciting to me then sitting in EQ reading different paragraphs from the manual and asking ourselves how we can be more faithful.  I think I'm getting some scrutinizing eye lately though.  The past couple of lessons I've gotten the whole bishopric, a stake Presidency member and a high council guy sitting in my EQ class none with much comment at all.  oops.  I guess it may be coming soon.  I've been getting a weird vibe from the EQP.  I just keep going.  I had a friend in the EQ presidency until two months or so ago--as he got pulled into Young Mens.  He said, "The thing that stinks about getting this new calling is I won't get to sit in on your husband's EQ lessons any more" as reported by my wife.  He's just being nice but I try my darndest and the amount of buzz and participation on the weeks I teach compared to otherwise is night and day.  Of course those who most often comment when I don't teach usually remain silent when I am teaching. 

 

Oh well.  I'm still teaching the 12-13 year olds in Sunday School.  Well, that might not last too long either.  I'm getting the SSP sitting in my class the past few weeks. 

 

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. 

[stemelbow]

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. 

 

lol..it might. 

 

It's really not my intent to cause problems though.  I just do naturally without thought.  Oops.