Our "orthodoxy"

[JLHPROF]

A while back I posted a poll for people to estimate their own personal level of Church orthodoxy.  (It wasn't well received for some reason).

 

Of late I am consistently surprised on this board at the responses I receive when I voice support for a position that I thought could be considered "traditional" within Church doctrine.  So I am wondering, are all the things I've been taught and read just incorrect to most of the members views now?  I have never seen so much Mormon tradition explained away or just plain disagreed with as not doctrinal.

 

I know my personal beliefs take a turn back towards the early days of the Church comparative to some of the modern day teachings, but even that aside, I am astounded at how many things I didn't think were arguable have differing beliefs among members here.

One thing this board has taught me that I didn't fully grasp before is that members of the Church have a very wide range of doctrinal beliefs (I certainly don't see that at my ward).  And probably less surprising is that they all seem to feel that their beliefs are orthodox ("official Church position").

 

Anyway, I'm not sure exactly what my point in making this post is.  I guess I am wondering if other board members are as consistently surprised as I am to have a position I thought was traditional argued against.  I certainly don't expect that we all be sheep in our beliefs and have "groupthink" but I am still surprised at what beliefs I thought orthodox are not even close to accepted or interpreted completely differently.  Just my thoughts lately.

 

[ksfisher]

A couple of thoughts:

 

1) The posts on this board does not give a clear picture of the beliefs and thinking of the total membership of the church or it's leaders.

 

2) Posters are more likely to reply to a post with which they disagree than one they are in agreement with.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Tsuzuki]

Mormonism doesn't have an orthodoxy. There's correlation, but that's different.

 

A thread I started about five years ago on the concept of heresy in Mormonism may be relevant.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/43042-how-is-the-concept-of-heresy-viewed-in-mormonism/

[JLHPROF]

Mormonism doesn't have an orthodoxy. There's correlation, but that's different.

 

A thread I started about five years ago on the concept of heresy in Mormonism may be relevant.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/43042-how-is-the-concept-of-heresy-viewed-in-mormonism/

 

The "orthodoxy" I'm talking about is the traditional teachings of Mormonism (not the watered down teachings of correlation).

For instance, it was a real surprise to me that so many members (on this board at least) do not believe they have the potential to become exactly like their Heavenly Father and one day organize worlds of their own just as he does.  Or some of the many strange ideas concerning polygamy that are not part of the Mormonism I was raised with.

 

As far as actual heretical ideas (ideas that have no basis in Mormonism or teach completely against Mormon doctrine), well that is an entirely different topic.

I am just continually surprised at how many "established truths" are considered anything but by the members on this board.

[Tsuzuki]

The "orthodoxy" I'm talking about is the traditional teachings of Mormonism (not the watered down teachings of correlation).

For instance, it was a real surprise to me that so many members (on this board at least) do not believe they have the potential to become exactly like their Heavenly Father and one day organize worlds of their own just as he does.  Or some of the many strange ideas concerning polygamy that are not part of the Mormonism I was raised with.

 

As far as actual heretical ideas (ideas that have no basis in Mormonism or teach completely against Mormon doctrine), well that is an entirely different topic.

I am just continually surprised at how many "established truths" are considered anything but by the members on this board.

I see what you're saying, especially about exaltation. It always seemed like common knowledge to me. But then again, I was BIC, and I don't know what the missionary lessons are like these days. I still see it as a lack of education, rather than anything to do with orthodoxy. Mormonism places no constraints on belief, and Brigham Young even said to reject errors in Mormonism if you find them there.

[cinepro]

A while back I posted a poll for people to estimate their own personal level of Church orthodoxy.  (It wasn't well received for some reason).

 

Of late I am consistently surprised on this board at the responses I receive when I voice support for a position that I thought could be considered "traditional" within Church doctrine.  So I am wondering, are all the things I've been taught and read just incorrect to most of the members views now?  I have never seen so much Mormon tradition explained away or just plain disagreed with as not doctrinal.

 

I know my personal beliefs take a turn back towards the early days of the Church comparative to some of the modern day teachings, but even that aside, I am astounded at how many things I didn't think were arguable have differing beliefs among members here.

One thing this board has taught me that I didn't fully grasp before is that members of the Church have a very wide range of doctrinal beliefs (I certainly don't see that at my ward).  And probably less surprising is that they all seem to feel that their beliefs are orthodox ("official Church position").

 

Anyway, I'm not sure exactly what my point in making this post is.  I guess I am wondering if other board members are as consistently surprised as I am to have a position I thought was traditional argued against.  I certainly don't expect that we all be sheep in our beliefs and have "groupthink" but I am still surprised at what beliefs I thought orthodox are not even close to accepted or interpreted completely differently.  Just my thoughts lately.

 

You're not the first to notice this, but we're supposed to pretend this disparity doesn't exist.

[JLHPROF]

You're not the first to notice this, but we're supposed to pretend this disparity doesn't exist.

 

  - that's funny.  Well, it's too bad that since according to this the Church "doesn't tell its members what to believe" we are constantly telling each other what we can/cannot believe because in our personal opinion "it's not doctrinal".

Perhaps we all (myself included) need to learn that what we think is "doctrinal" in Mormonism actually isn't.  Because I am sure quick to get told if I suggest that I believe something that another poster doesn't consider doctrinal, even when I have a reference I consider valid.

Edited September 15, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Storm Rider]

You take positions that I find outside of orthodoxy.  I am a purist - if it is in not in scripture then it isn't doctrine.  I have come to this position because of what has occurred in church history.  When members confuse policy with church doctrine I find a problem.  For example, blacks and the priesthood was a matter of policy i.e. there was no revelation, no acknowledged direction from God. Brigham just began a policy that said they will no longer be ordained to the priesthood.  Second example, the 89th Section of the Doctrine & Covenants went from being a recommendation that was not compelled to obey by the membership to being compelled to obey by the saints.  These are not minor issues, but conflict with our Standard Works; there was no revelation, simply a change in policy. It is my personal opinion that each time we create policy we take one step away from Jesus Christ and we lean unto our own understanding. 

 

Revelation is bedrock fundamental to the Church and to its members.  However, we have allowed revelation to, at times, play second fiddle to the dictates of leaders. I see this as an unacceptable position for me. The only way I know to avoid problems, to understand history, is to make it clear; revelation is truth; confirmation of the Holy Spirit is truth, but simply because a man says something, regardless of position, only makes it his opinion and will remain his opinion until such time as the Church adds it to the Standard Works.

 

It is quite easy to add to our Standard Works.  There is no reason why the positions you take cannot be added to scripture IF the Lord wanted them to be doctrine. The fact that they have not been added to scripture means they are not doctrine.

 

I realize that other people have a more easy time and see no problems.  More importantly, they have faith that if a prophet speaks it is the Word of God without exception. That is not me, but I respect those that take this position.

[Tsuzuki]

I take even scripture with a grain of salt, and try to take Brigham Young's advice of accepting truth from any source and rejecting error no matter the source. Orthodoxy is meaningless to me.

[JLHPROF]

You take positions that I find outside of orthodoxy.  I am a purist - if it is in not in scripture then it isn't doctrine.

 

...and will remain his opinion until such time as the Church adds it to the Standard Works.

 

It is quite easy to add to our Standard Works.  There is no reason why the positions you take cannot be added to scripture IF the Lord wanted them to be doctrine. The fact that they have not been added to scripture means they are not doctrine.

 

I completely accept your right to this opinion but I personally have issues with it.  To me the only difference between scripture and non-voted revelation is that the people haven't chosen to accept it.  It doesn't legitimize the truth of something.  To me every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God is true, regardless of whether we vote that it came from God.

 

All the scriptures are are revelations/teachings of prophets and apostles that we have all agreed we like.  Just because we haven't agreed to like a teaching or revelation does absolutely nothing to its truthfulness.  We just can't call it official.  True is true, regardless of common consent.

[stemelbow]

I don't think this board is particularly representative of mainstream Mormonism. Mormons who gravitate toward apologetics tend to view a lot of things differently than the average member in the pews. My bishop, I am sure, has not received the memo that evolution is totally cool and that the Flood was only a local event

 

Ya have to wonder how a bishop can be presiding in this day and age and not have received notice that evolution is a possible position in the Church just as a local flood event. no? 

 

Isn't the lack of communication on things like this a problem?  I sit in church sometimes wondering if other members have picked up a book outside from peeking in the scriptures, or reading the first edition of Mormon Doctrine when they were college co-eds, the latest GA inspirational, or the cutesy trending novels of our day.  And I admit I'm not the most well read.  I just don't understand the sticking heads in sand that seems prevalent among our people.  Heaven forbid I bring up the notion that the flood was local or based on myths.  I'm already considered some outsider and if I ever raise my hand these days more eyes are rolling and blood starts boiling before I say a word.  Best to sit quiet and leave the echo chamber and boredom abound. 

[Alan]

You take positions that I find outside of orthodoxy.  I am a purist - if it is in not in scripture then it isn't doctrine.  I have come to this position because of what has occurred in church history.  When members confuse policy with church doctrine I find a problem.  For example, blacks and the priesthood was a matter of policy i.e. there was no revelation, no acknowledged direction from God. Brigham just began a policy that said they will no longer be ordained to the priesthood.  Second example, the 89th Section of the Doctrine & Covenants went from being a recommendation that was not compelled to obey by the membership to being compelled to obey by the saints.  These are not minor issues, but conflict with our Standard Works; there was no revelation, simply a change in policy. It is my personal opinion that each time we create policy we take one step away from Jesus Christ and we lean unto our own understanding. 

 

Revelation is bedrock fundamental to the Church and to its members.  However, we have allowed revelation to, at times, play second fiddle to the dictates of leaders. I see this as an unacceptable position for me. The only way I know to avoid problems, to understand history, is to make it clear; revelation is truth; confirmation of the Holy Spirit is truth, but simply because a man says something, regardless of position, only makes it his opinion and will remain his opinion until such time as the Church adds it to the Standard Works.

 

It is quite easy to add to our Standard Works.  There is no reason why the positions you take cannot be added to scripture IF the Lord wanted them to be doctrine. The fact that they have not been added to scripture means they are not doctrine.

 

I realize that other people have a more easy time and see no problems.  More importantly, they have faith that if a prophet speaks it is the Word of God without exception. That is not me, but I respect those that take this position.

 

I absolutely agree with this post.

Much of what some people think of as being "orthodoxy" is nothing of the sort. In fact, much of it is nothing less than the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

The scriptures are what we are commanded to search and believe. Not the history books, not the journals of Joseph's contemporaries, not even the un-canonised saying/writings of church leaders past and present, however fascinating or compelling.

[stemelbow]

I completely accept your right to this opinion but I personally have issues with it.  To me the only difference between scripture and non-voted revelation is that the people haven't chosen to accept it.  It doesn't legitimize the truth of something.  To me every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God is true, regardless of whether we vote that it came from God.

 

All the scriptures are are revelations/teachings of prophets and apostles that we have all agreed we like.  Just because we haven't agreed to like a teaching or revelation does absolutely nothing to its truthfulness.  We just can't call it official.  True is true, regardless of common consent.

 

Just because a statement is found in scripture  we cannot assume that statement is true in and of itself.  The same for other pronouncements given via General Conference.  That's where I diverge from the both of ya, respecting, of course, the difference of opinion.  Truth is truth whether someone misunderstood in recording scripture or a GA is speaking assumption as though it is revelation and truth and yet is not.  We can't change that.  Those who are given scripture are no different then those who record it, in that we're all human. 

 

We have to learn to live with some confusion, misunderstanding and non-truth claimed to be truth. 

[ksfisher]

Ya have to wonder how a bishop can be presiding in this day and age and not have received notice that evolution is a possible position in the Church just as a local flood event. no? 

 

Isn't the lack of communication on things like this a problem?  I sit in church sometimes wondering if other members have picked up a book outside from peeking in the scriptures, or reading the first edition of Mormon Doctrine when they were college co-eds, the latest GA inspirational, or the cutesy trending novels of our day.  And I admit I'm not the most well read.  I just don't understand the sticking heads in sand that seems prevalent among our people.  Heaven forbid I bring up the notion that the flood was local or based on myths.  I'm already considered some outsider and if I ever raise my hand these days more eyes are rolling and blood starts boiling before I say a word.  Best to sit quiet and leave the echo chamber and boredom abound. 

 

Most of the bishops I've worked with have much more immediate concerns about the members of their wards than whether a flood that happened several thousand years ago was local or global.  They've got marriages falling apart, families without enough food, people out of work, and callings to fill and not enough willing people to fill them. 

[Alan]

 the only difference between scripture and non-voted revelation is that the people haven't chosen to accept it.  

 

No, the difference is that the people have not been given the opportunity to accept it. The kingdom of God is not a democracy.

If it isn't presented as the mind and will of the Lord and binding on the people, then it probably isn't.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Alan

[ERayR]

I don't think this board is particularly representative of mainstream Mormonism. Mormons who gravitate toward apologetics tend to view a lot of things differently than the average member in the pews. My bishop, I am sure, has not received the memo that evolution is totally cool and that the Flood was only a local event

 

Neither have some members of this board.  Me included.

[stemelbow]

Most of the bishops I've worked with have much more immediate concerns about the members of their wards than whether a flood that happened several thousand years ago was local or global.  They've got marriages falling apart, families without enough food, people out of work, and callings to fill and not enough willing people to fill them. 

 

Why do the bishops have marriages falling apart, families with/out enough food, people out of work? 

 

Callings to fill is easy enough.

 

Stop putting our problems on our stinking bishops--at least stop acting like they have our answers. 

 

Anyway, as I've understood messages that have come the past couple of years problems within families are arising because members are looking into matters such as "a global flood doesn't make sense in reality".  So, it seems likely most bishops will have heard some of the less "orthodox" ideas and may even, quite a bit of the time, get asked about them.  How a bishop can be presiding in this day and not have run across seems unlikely to me.  But somehow, like Nevo's bishop I'd guess my bishop is about in the same category. 

[Grudunza]

And probably less surprising is that they all seem to feel that their beliefs are orthodox ("official Church position").

 

I definitely don't feel that some of my particular views are "official Church position."  I know they aren't, actually.  But I'm more of the view that some positions, whether official or not, have a pretty wide room for personal interpretation.

[ksfisher]

Why do the bishops have marriages falling apart, families with/out enough food, people out of work? 

 

Callings to fill is easy enough.

 

Stop putting our problems on our stinking bishops--at least stop acting like they have our answers. 

 

Anyway, as I've understood messages that have come the past couple of years problems within families are arising because members are looking into matters such as "a global flood doesn't make sense in reality".  So, it seems likely most bishops will have heard some of the less "orthodox" ideas and may even, quite a bit of the time, get asked about them.  How a bishop can be presiding in this day and not have run across seems unlikely to me.  But somehow, like Nevo's bishop I'd guess my bishop is about in the same category. 

 

Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly.  Bishops should stop worrying about the temporal needs of the people under their stewardship?  I thought that was what they were called to do?

 

Perhaps in your area callings are easy to fill.  In my stake there are always more callings needing to be filled than members willing to fill them.

 

I do agree with you that we should stop expecting lay priesthood leaders to be scriptural authorities. 

[stemelbow]

Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly.  Bishops should stop worrying about the temporal needs of the people under their stewardship?  I thought that was what they were called to do?

The misunderstanding was my fault, for sure. Bishop's having the duty of worrying about the temporal needs of the people is fine and dandy. Putting on a bishop's shoulders every conceivable problem a family or individual faces seems to be the norm, at least for many members. And that's just ridiculous.

 

Perhaps in your area callings are easy to fill.  In my stake there are always more callings needing to be filled than members willing to fill them.

perhaps.

 

I do agree with you that we should stop expecting lay priesthood leaders to be scriptural authorities.

Awesome.

[JLHPROF]

No, the difference is that the people have not been given the opportunity to accept it. The kingdom of God is not a democracy.

If it isn't presented as the mind and will of the Lord and binding on the people, then it probably isn't.

 

Common consent might be a principle of the Church but it is not a principle of the Gospel. 

Whether we vote accept something as from God or not doesn't change whether it's from God or not.  The Church has always had the right to reject truth and revelation.

 

Agency is a principle of the gospel.  We will always have the right to follow or not follow any truth whether it is from God or not.

[JLHPROF]

But back to the original topic - does it ever surprise you the things that you believe to be orthodox (established truths) that many other members reject completely, for whatever reason it happens to be.

 

I never thought I would meet active members who believed:

- Joseph didn't live plural marriage

- We cannot become Gods like Heavenly Father

- We will never progress to running our own creation

- That the form of an ordinance didn't really matter much

- That Moses/Noah/Adam/Eve or whoever didn't exist

- That God didn't flood the whole earth

- That Temple sealings of man to woman are different from Temple marriage

- That Joseph/Brigham or whomever might have led the Church astray

 

and on, and on, and on...

I am still so surprised by responses on this board sometimes.

[Buzzard]

But back to the original topic - does it ever surprise you the things that you believe to be orthodox (established truths) that many other members reject completely, for whatever reason it happens to be.

 

I never thought I would meet active members who believed:

- Joseph didn't live plural marriage

- We cannot become Gods like Heavenly Father

- We will never progress to running our own creation

- That the form of an ordinance didn't really matter much

- That Moses/Noah/Adam/Eve or whoever didn't exist

- That God didn't flood the whole earth

- That Temple sealings of man to woman are different from Temple marriage

- That Joseph/Brigham or whomever might have led the Church astray

 

and on, and on, and on...

I am still so surprised by responses on this board sometimes.

Well, I'm five out of seven.  I don't know and don't care much about the specifics of the flood, and don't think that the imperfections of our leaders will have direct bearing on my salvation. 

IMHO, if you can pass the questions on a TR interview, you are orthodox.  And I'm referring to the questions regarding belief, not behavior. Plenty of very orthodox LDS have a few issues with doing things that they know they should not be doing. 

[stemelbow]

But back to the original topic - does it ever surprise you the things that you believe to be orthodox (established truths) that many other members reject completely, for whatever reason it happens to be.

 

I never thought I would meet active members who believed:

- Joseph didn't live plural marriage

- We cannot become Gods like Heavenly Father

- We will never progress to running our own creation

- That the form of an ordinance didn't really matter much

- That Moses/Noah/Adam/Eve or whoever didn't exist

- That God didn't flood the whole earth

- That Temple sealings of man to woman are different from Temple marriage

- That Joseph/Brigham or whomever might have led the Church astray

 

and on, and on, and on...

I am still so surprised by responses on this board sometimes.

Nah...not surprised.