Our "orthodoxy"

[Robert F. Smith]

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'm surprised that you're surprised, Professor.  Anybody paying attention to the Mormon scene in recent decades should know already full well that controversy and dispute are de rigeur.  That was true long before this or any other blogging board was established.

 

Mormon culture and folklore seem orthodox to some members (and former members), even at the highest levels.  I thought it quite interesting, for example, that Elder McConkie was frankly surprised at what took place in 1978.  And he was not alone, though his gracious declaration of ignorance on that matter was refreshing.  I knew a great many well-intentioned, good-hearted people who just didn't understand the will of the Lord on racial matters, and certainly didn't hark back to Joseph Smith on such a grave question.

 

That's what revelation and an open canon are for, sometimes.

 

We are a people, not simply a bunch of quixotic individuals, and just like ancient Israel, we are going to be judged as a group, a congregation of the faithful, who either get it right and obey the Lord, or are going to be corrected/punished along the way.  As a people.  This is something we too easily forget.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

The Law of Common Consent (free agency) was even true in Heaven, where one-third refused to accept God's Plan of Salvation.

 

We vote constantly on issues large and small, and the Mormon Canon was approved in General Conference.  God never jams anything down our throats.  We have the power to choose.  Of course, with choice come consequences -- the Law of the Harvest.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Alan]

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.

 

I think this is a bit of a straw man.

It seems you have selected things that you believe are "orthodox" and are then comparing the beliefs of others with them to prove they are not orthodox. A typical straw man argument.

 

Maybe it isn't that some of us are not orthodox, maybe it's just that we have refused to accept the orthodox position just because some people/traditions etc say it's the orthodox position! Some of us have, perhaps, looked a little deeper and studied it out for ourselves. Maybe we have come to correct conclusions, maybe not. But our views should not be rejected simple because they do not match up with some arbitary straw man position.

 

As for the list above, I'm quite sure any of us could write a similar list and prove many people here unorthodox, even those who claim they are fully paid up members of the orthodox club.

[JLHPROF]

The Law of Common Consent (free agency) was even true in Heaven, where one-third refused to accept God's Plan of Salvation.

 

We vote constantly on issues large and small, and the Mormon Canon was approved in General Conference.  God never jams anything down our throats.  We have the power to choose.  Of course, with choice come consequences.

 

Nonsense.  The law of common consent and the law of free agency are NOT the same thing.  What was seen in the Council in Heaven was the law of agency.  Even if 9/10 of the spirits had rejected God's plan it would have still been adopted because common consent didn't apply and it was the only path to salvation.

 

Common consent is a majority vote.  Agency is your right to ignore the vote and suffer the consequences.

Common consent is part of the Church, not an eternal law like agency.  The eternal law is "I God spoke and watched till I was obeyed".

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................................

 

and on, and on, and on...

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

Yeh, and you are going to continue to be surprised.

[JLHPROF]

I think this is a bit of a straw man.

It seems you have selected things that you believe are "orthodox" and are then comparing the beliefs of others with them to prove they are not orthodox. A typical straw man argument.

 

Maybe it isn't that some of us are not orthodox, maybe it's just that we have refused to accept the orthodox position just because some people/traditions etc say it's the orthodox position! Some of us have, perhaps, looked a little deeper and studied it out for ourselves. Maybe we have come to correct conclusions, maybe not. But our views should not be rejected simple because they do not match up with some arbitary straw man position.

 

As for the list above, I'm quite sure any of us could write a similar list and prove many people here unorthodox, even those who claim they are fully paid up members of the orthodox club.

 

Well, then ignore the word orthodox or the topics I chose.  They apply to the things that surprise me.

The teachings listed above have been taught again and again in the Church for nearly centuries.  I am not doubting people's right to believe differently, only my surprise that given how often these have been the generally accepted truths so many people consider the opposing viewpoints as true.

It would be like me being raised a life long Catholic who never believed the trinity.  It still comes as a surprise.

[stemelbow]

I'm surprised that you're surprised, Professor.  Anybody paying attention to the Mormon scene in recent decades should know already full well that controversy and dispute are de rigeur.  That was true long before this or any other blogging board was established.

 

Mormon culture and folklore seem orthodox to some members (and former members), even at the highest levels.  I thought it quite interesting, for example, that Elder McConkie was frankly surprised at what took place in 1978.  And he was not alone, though his gracious declaration of ignorance on that matter was refreshing.  I knew a great many well-intentioned, good-hearted people who just didn't understand the will of the Lord on racial matters, and certainly didn't hark back to Joseph Smith on such a grave question.

 

That's what revelation and an open canon are for, sometimes.

 

We are a people, not simply a bunch of quixotic individuals, and just like ancient Israel, we are going to be judged as a group, a congregation of the faithful, who either get it right and obey the Lord, or are going to be corrected/punished along the way.  As a people.  This is something we too easily forget.

Forget? How do we even know that there's truth there? Punished as a people? That's not just mythic metaphors? It's not like we went bankrupt for buying the notion that blacks were less valiant, no?

I've read the scriptures to suggest we are products of our cultures and traditions and if we can't start to see the good and bad of those, embracing the good, and eschewing the bad, we'll be held accountable in the end. Kinda like when we embraced the racism against blacks. We messed up (well not we since I wasn't living) but its since been corrected, at least to some extent. Perhaps we're messing up in other ways. We aren't treating women well? Don't have a good perspective on that? Who knows? We certainly don't seem to. And if we figure it out and fix our mistakes how are we to know we were wrong to begin with? Afterall, it's not like we don't have plenty of members who buy wholesale the notion that blacks were less valiant in the pre-earth world. They're still out there.

[Robert F. Smith]

Nonsense.  The law of common consent and the law of free agency are NOT the same thing.  What was seen in the Council in Heaven was the law of agency.  Even if 9/10 of the spirits had rejected God's plan it would have still been adopted because common consent didn't apply and it was the only path to salvation.

 

Common consent is a majority vote.  Agency is your right to ignore the vote and suffer the consequences.

Common consent is part of the Church, not an eternal law like agency.  The eternal law is "I God spoke and watched till I was obeyed".

Out of your own mouth, Professor:  

You say that "common consent is a majority vote," and likely see that a minority chose to vote the other way in Heaven, thus exercising their free agency, and to suffer the consequences.  You don't know what would have happened if 9/10 had voted against the Plan of Happiness, and neither do I.  We only know the direction things actually took.  God does not coerce us, though He often gives us enough rope so that we can hang ourselves.

God respects us, even though He weeps when we make fatally wrong choices -- as any father would.

God is the not the absolute dictator you envision.

[Alan]

Well, then ignore the word orthodox or the topics I chose.  They apply to the things that surprise me.

The teachings listed above have been taught again and again in the Church for nearly centuries.  I am not doubting people's right to believe differently, only my surprise that given how often these have been the generally accepted truths so many people consider the opposing viewpoints as true.

It would be like me being raised a life long Catholic who never believed the trinity.  It still comes as a surprise.

 

I see what you mean.

By the way, you'd be surprised at how many Catholics don't believe the trinity.

 

My point is, just because something has been "taught again and again in the Church" doesn't make it either true or orthodox. Constant repetition doesn't mean something is right or that it isn't based on flimsy assumptions or half truths. I wouldn't want to be "orthodox" if "orthodox" was wrong.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Alan

[Boanerges]

I somewhat recently returned to activity after an absence spurred by a faith crisis. Prior to my absence I had served for over 20 years in a variety of callings - including counselor in two bishoprics. A big thing that kept me from returning sooner was that I felt my new way of looking at things wasn't really mainstream enough and I wouldn't fit in. Frankly, Pres. Uchtdorf's October address changed that for me.

 

Of your list (and I understand it is meant to be a sampling, not all inclusive), I actually always thought Joseph practiced polygamy but was until recently unaware of the polyandry. I don't believe becoming like God means we are gods, that we become creators - and I don't want to be a god. Ordinances are symbolic, nothing more - priesthood is an authority, not a power. All OT people could be figurative - Adam & Eve almost definitely are, and the flood is figurative/symbolic also. I don't necessarily believe JS/BY led the church astray, but I do believe they just made up some things that I don't consider to be doctrine. I may not be understanding the temple marriage thing - I do believe it is symbolic (as are all things in the temple). And I could go on.

 

What has surprised me is that many members have similar beliefs to me. Yes, I think the majority still hold Mormon Doctrine to be sacred and the final word on all things (I think it should be burned - it was just BRM doing what JS and BY did) and I still hear in Sunday School that every word in GC is scripture, etc. But there is definitely a silent minority, and it's often telling to me what people don't say.

 

So I rest comfortably in believing Pres. Uchtdorf and generally keep my mouth shut - although in private conversations, including those with the SP, I am much more open. To me the Gospel (which is different and separate from, although related to, the church) is very simple and has much more to do with love, the Savior, mercy, grace, etc., than drinking coffee and tea (which I don't do). I can't tell you how many times the SP has said to me, "Thanks, I never thought about it that way before." Bottom line: it doesn't matter of the guy sitting next to me believes Jonah was real and actually lived 3 days in a fish's belly (once in SS there was a discussion what kind of fish it was) and I don't - we both get the same message from the story.

[JLHPROF]

Out of your own mouth, Professor:  

You say that "common consent is a majority vote," and likely see that a minority chose to vote the other way in Heaven, thus exercising their free agency, and to suffer the consequences.  You don't know what would have happened if 9/10 had voted against the Plan of Happiness, and neither do I.  We only know the direction things actually took.  God does not coerce us, though He often gives us enough rope so that we can hang ourselves.

God respects us, even though He weeps when we make fatally wrong choices -- as any father would.

God is the not the absolute dictator you envision.

 

I have to disagree with you.  We do know what would have happened if 9/10 had voted against the plan.  It still would have happened just as it happens in EVERY creation.  And the scripture is full of examples where God throws common consent out of the window, where he speaks and expects to be obeyed.

 

"Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ" Phillipians 2:10-11

"God watched until he was obeyed"  Abraham 4

"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" Daniel 4:35

"A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps." Proverbs 16:9

 

God does NOT operate by common consent - he's God and his law is not up for debate or adoption.  He does allow us to disobey the law, but not to approve or disapprove it.

We always have our agency to choose another direction and suffer the consequences.  We do NOT have the ability through voting to remove those consequences or cancel the plan.  Common consent is based on the principle that if we do not vote to accept something we are not bound by it.  It means if we do not vote to sustain a leader we are not bound to follow them.  It means if we do not accept a revelation we are not bound to follow it as scripture/canon.

 

When God commands we either obey or suffer the consequences.  We don't get to vote on whether God's command is correct.  Common consent doesn't apply.  We always get to choose whether or not to follow the path and be saved or lost.  We do not get to choose which path is adopted as the way back by God.  Common consent doesn't apply.

[JLHPROF]

I see what you mean.

By the way, you'd be surprised at how many Catholics don't believe the trinity.

 

My point is, just because something has been "taught again and again in the Church" doesn't make it either true or orthodox. Constant repetition doesn't mean something is right or that it isn't based on flimsy assumptions or half truths. I wouldn't want to be "orthodox" if "orthodox" was wrong.

 

Would you be surprised to find numerous members of the Church that didn't believe Joseph was a prophet?  Would you be surprised to find numerous members that didn't believe the Book of Mormon came from God?  Would you be surprised to find members of the LDS church that DO believe in the trinity?  Would you be surprised to find members of the Church who don't believe in Temples?  Would you be surprised to find members of the Church who don't believe in baptism?  Tithing?  WoW?  The list is endless.  Would you be surprised?

 

Because that's how I feel about the items I listed on my earlier post.  And because there are undoubtedly active members of the Church who believe the things in this post too, and feel perfectly justified scripturally in their beliefs AND as members of the LDS Church.  I think we probably have active members who believe almost every doctrinal option.  So yes, I am VERY surprised at the doctrines I find myself defending on this board from time to time.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have to disagree with you.  We do know what would have happened if 9/10 had voted against the plan.  It still would have happened just as it happens in EVERY creation.  And the scripture is full of examples where God throws common consent out of the window, where he speaks and expects to be obeyed.

 

"Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ" Phillipians 2:10-11

"God watched until he was obeyed"  Abraham 4

"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" Daniel 4:35

"A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps." Proverbs 16:9

 

God does NOT operate by common consent - he's God and his law is not up for debate or adoption.  He does allow us to disobey the law, but not to approve or disapprove it.

We always have our agency to choose another direction and suffer the consequences.  We do NOT have the ability through voting to remove those consequences or cancel the plan.  Common consent is based on the principle that if we do not vote to accept something we are not bound by it.  It means if we do not vote to sustain a leader we are not bound to follow them.  It means if we do not accept a revelation we are not bound to follow it as scripture/canon.

 

When God commands we either obey or suffer the consequences.  We don't get to vote on whether God's command is correct.  Common consent doesn't apply.  We always get to choose whether or not to follow the path and be saved or lost.  We do not get to choose which path is adopted as the way back by God.  Common consent doesn't apply.

This little tirade is prime evidence and indication as to why you are so frequently surprised (and perhaps dismayed) by the opinions expressed on this board.

 

You appear to be seeking agreement with your very narrow and legalistic viewpoints.  You have learned these viewpoints somewhere along the way, perhaps from childhood, and suffer discomfort (cognitive dissonance) if others do not reinforce such sad points of view.  This causes you to select particular scriptures, but not others which are at odds with them, thus leading you to wear blinders and to be shocked at other viewpoints.  This leads you in a vicious circle, from which you cannot extricate yourself.  You should perhaps learn from that experience, instead of professing surprise.  That's what we are here for -- here in this life.

 

The Law of Common Consent is God's law, and his doctrine is always up for discussion and refusal to adopt, as I have already indicated several times.  In exercising our free agency, of course we must bear the consequences, just as I have already said.  You need to read (and perhaps listen) more carefully.

 

The same applied to Jesus:  He could accept or reject the responsibility he was given.  His temptations were real, just as his choice was real.  It had to be, lest it have no meaning.

[JLHPROF]

You appear to be seeking agreement with your very narrow and legalistic viewpoints.  You have learned these viewpoints somewhere along the way, perhaps from childhood, and suffer discomfort (cognitive dissonance) if others do not reinforce such sad points of view.  This causes you to select particular scriptures, but not others which are at odds with them, thus leading you to wear blinders and to be shocked at other viewpoints.  This leads you in a vicious circle, from which you cannot extricate yourself.  You should perhaps learn from that experience, instead of professing surprise.  That's what we are here for -- here in this life.

 

 

Wow, it's fun to be psychoanalyzed on an internet board.  My viewpoints come from the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets.  Maybe a little literalistic or traditional, but that's just me.

 

Thanks Dr. Freud, but I don't find your couch very beneficial.

Edited September 15, 2014 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

The same applied to Jesus:  He could accept or reject the responsibility he was given.  His temptations were real, just as his choice was real.  It had to be, lest it have no meaning.

 

And again, this is agency, not common consent.  The plan wasn't up for debate (vote/adoption).  Christ's choice to follow it was always his (agency).

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Wow, it's fun to be psychoanalyzed on an internet board.  My viewpoints come from the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets.  Maybe a little literalistic or traditional, but that's just me.

 

Thanks Dr. Freud, but I don't find your couch very beneficial.

 

Yo Momma!

 

[Buzzard]

 Bottom line: it doesn't matter of the guy sitting next to me believes Jonah was real and actually lived 3 days in a fish's belly (once in SS there was a discussion what kind of fish it was) and I don't - we both get the same message from the story.

Not to divert the thread, but a lot of time, getting hung on things like whether there really was a fish obscures the real lesson in the scriptures. I've come to realize that a large part of the message of the Book of Jonah is a lecture against racism. Arguing about the existence and/or type of fish can keep us from absorbing what is really being taught.  

There are some other examples of this as well, especially in the OT, where profound truth and revelations can sometimes be interwoven with legend and folk tales. 

[Robert F. Smith]

And again, this is agency, not common consent.  The plan wasn't up for debate (vote/adoption).  Christ's choice to follow it was always his (agency).

Of course, I never said it wasn't.  You read a lot into what people are not saying, and this may be another reason for your unease with variant opinions -- when really you just don't understand.

 

It might be helpful to read a very different approach to Scripture, such as in Taylor Halvorsen's latest in Interpreter:  http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/besides-me-there-is-no-saviour-isaiah-40-49/ .  You need to get a feel for what the Scriptures really say.

 

For you, apparently, God is what many would describe as an ogre, fitful, jealous, and unmoving.  Yet for Abraham, He could be negotiated with, and for Jonah he could carry on a conversation.  The absolutism you advocate is your preferred fantasy.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Yo Momma!

 

Oedipus Rex gives you a rep point.

 

Let's all back off from the personal stuff, please.

[Kind Debater]

The teachings listed above have been taught again and again in the Church for nearly centuries.  I am not doubting people's right to believe differently, only my surprise that given how often these have been the generally accepted truths so many people consider the opposing viewpoints as true.

I was surprised myself when I first came here, but I've found the range of opinions/beliefs here is just as wide as it is among theists/Christians in general.

As a fellow conservative, I think it's cool that you are a conservative and are willing to stand up for your beliefs (even though I disagree with them )

[JLHPROF]

I was surprised myself when I first came here, but I've found the range of opinions/beliefs here is just as wide as it is among theists/Christians in general.

As a fellow conservative, I think it's cool that you are a conservative and are willing to stand up for your beliefs (even though I disagree with them )

 

Thanks.  I don't expect people to agree with me.  And I am definitely not arguing that God is an ogre or against the most important eternal principle of agency.

 

But apparently because I disagree that God operates by  "Common Consent" outside of the mortal Church I am engaging in fantasy, suffer from issues from my childhood, and am closed minded (wear blinders).  I love coming here to be insulted and be condescended to.

 

So thank you Kind Debater for an aptly Kind response.  I wish others responded that way.

Edited September 15, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Senator]

 

  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.

 

Welcome to the world of Mormon apologetics!

[omni]

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.

From what I've read of your posts, I can't think of single belief you've stated that JS or BY would disagree with. You remind me of my FIL, he's got that old school, traditional style of belief.

[JLHPROF]

From what I've read of your posts, I can't think of single belief you've stated that JS or BY would disagree with. You remind me of my FIL, he's got that old school, traditional style of belief.

 

That's me exactly.

[Tsuzuki]

Considering the origins of Mormonism, I find myself puzzled whenever someone tries to argue for an orthodoxy.