Our "orthodoxy"

[BCSpace]

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.

 

 

The official doctrine is certain and easily identifiable by official publication. I may or may not have participated in your previous thread, but I believe I am about 95% orthodox. I define orthodoxy in this case as being in step with the published doctrine. When I disagree with such doctrine, I freely admit it rather than attempting to state my own views as orthodoxy.

 

I don't measure that 95% by numbers of doctrines I disagree with, but rather the importance I or the Church seems to place upon them. For example; I disagree with the doctrine of a global Flood. I disagree that the verses referred to don't necessarily place the garden of Eden in the USA nor do they date the time of Jesus' birth. I disagree with the Church's policy on MX missile basing and nuclear waste storage in Utah. I disagree some with how they handle the Boy Scout program in terms of how they divide troops by Ward.

 

Feel free to say I must be more or less orthodox than 95%.

Edited September 16, 2014 by BCSpace

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

We agree to disagree; it works for me.  

[3DOP]

JLHPROF, hi.

 

My ONLY experience with Mormonism is on the internet going back to the Fall of 2000, when a site like this one was started called Zion Lighthouse Message Board, ZLMB. It suffered in my opinion, from having too much commitment to the principle of allowing everyone to speak out with very little control. If I am not mistaken, its virtual takeover by personalities who were hostile to LDS claims led in part to the eventual formation of this forum, with some of its tighter, and in my opinion, prudent controls.

 

There was one clever individual, also hostile to your Church who will be nameless here, but some will remember. He posed an idea to the Mormons there which at the time was according to my recollection, vigorously criticised by the Mormons present. He claimed that there was a dichotomy between what he labelled Internet Mormons as opposed to what he labelled Chapel Mormons. Having little to no experience of "Chapel Mormonism", I was willing to dismiss his claims, although I never forgot his ideas on this. Subsequently, it has seemed to me that there is a great deal of insight in to the reality of the situation that this fellow saw well over a decade ago. I say that because it seems to me like you are repeating the same ideas as he. The difference is only that your voice is as a faithful Mormon and his was the voice of one who seemed determined to ridicule Mormonism. 

 

I think some here will recall this discussion at ZLMB and can reply as to the accuracy of my recollection.

 

3DOP   

Edited September 16, 2014 by 3DOP

[Senator]

Feel free to say I must be more or less orthodox than 95%.

 

Well, you're full of dox, but could stand a lot more ortho.

[HappyJackWagon]

This topic is enlightening because we often tend to believe that our thoughts, understanding and beliefs should be shared by everyone. We can see that there is great variety within the church. As Uchtdorf says, expecting everyone to be identical in beliefs, attitudes and behaviors contradicts the "genius of God." Recognizing this is important.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Boanerges]

But isn't this celebrating-our-differences approach in tension with the directive to "be one"? What does the Lord mean when he says: "If ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27)? Is a Zion society possible where people are not "of one heart and one mind"?

 

Maybe you should ask Pres. Uchtdorf - he says similar things often. IMO "being one" does not necessarily mean all being alike. I'm a full fledged TR carrying member and believer in the core principles of the gospel and doctrines of the church. But there's a lot of fluff I don't buy.

[HappyJackWagon]

Yes, there is some tension between those teachings.

 

There's a lot we can be unified in but we don't need to be identical. We can be unified in following Christ, showing love and compassion for the less fortunate. We can be unified in seeking to personally understand and act upon the will of God. But we should not be so arrogent as to think that my understanding for what God wants me to do is also what he wants you to do. There is variety in personality and trying to force everyone to conform is harmful.

[Ahab]

... 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.

Nope, not surprised. I learned a long time ago that even members of the Church may not and often do not accept some particular teaching(s) of our Lord through his prophets and what we all should rely on is confirmation of truth through personal revelation from God.

There is absolutely no good reason to automatically accept what any man or woman may say about anything.

[JLHPROF]

Nope, not surprised. I learned a long time ago that even members of the Church may not and often do not accept some particular teaching(s) of our Lord through his prophets and what we all should rely on is confirmation of truth through personal revelation from God.

There is absolutely no good reason to automatically accept what any man or woman may say about anything.

 

Thank you.  This is the kind of response I was hoping for.  I sometimes wonder if it's just me that has accepted a particular teaching that has been in the Church forever and has been taught by numerous prophets of God.  There are always so many people ready to disagree with almost anything, even among the faithful members.

Edited September 16, 2014 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

But isn't this celebrating-our-differences approach in tension with the directive to "be one"? What does the Lord mean when he says: "If ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27)? Is a Zion society possible where people are not "of one heart and one mind"?

We're working to be one. I dont' think we need to force ourselves to be one. Ultimate goal to be one with God and Christ. That won't happen in this life. Truth and goodness is important in the meantime. We just try to arrive at something that works and makes sense, and we tend to disagree about how that is done.

[rameumptom]

The problem is defining doctrine.  We do not have a core theology like other religions.  We believe in the Atonement, yet how the atonement actually happened is open for discussion. We believe in the Godhead, but how to define it in detail is open for discussion. We believe in the Restoration, but the Church does not have all truth.  Brigham Young taught many things, but even he acknowledged that not everything he said was doctrine, so what do we accept?  Correlation helps us establish the basic doctrines, and prevents us from turning mysteries or speculation into doctrine.

 

Evolution or Creationism or something else? We do not have a doctrine on it.

Polygamy required for exaltation? Brigham taught it, but is not doctrine.

Adam-God? Brigham taught it but it is not doctrine.

 

Having a lack of specific doctrine allows members to seek God for themselves without a myriad of theological doctrines that bind us and keep us from receiving our own personal revelation on it.

[JLHPROF]

The problem is defining doctrine.  We do not have a core theology like other religions.  We believe in the Atonement, yet how the atonement actually happened is open for discussion. We believe in the Godhead, but how to define it in detail is open for discussion. We believe in the Restoration, but the Church does not have all truth.  Brigham Young taught many things, but even he acknowledged that not everything he said was doctrine, so what do we accept?  Correlation helps us establish the basic doctrines, and prevents us from turning mysteries or speculation into doctrine.

 

Evolution or Creationism or something else? We do not have a doctrine on it.

Polygamy required for exaltation? Brigham taught it, but is not doctrine.

Adam-God? Brigham taught it but it is not doctrine.

 

Having a lack of specific doctrine allows members to seek God for themselves without a myriad of theological doctrines that bind us and keep us from receiving our own personal revelation on it.

 

This I understand.

But as time goes on it seems we want more and more that God specifically say things rather than accepting on faith.

I mean, for over a century it was standard teaching in the Church that one day the exalted saints would become like God and eventually preside over our own creations.  This was taught, reiterated, expounded upon, and became a defining part of Mormonism.  Now it's "where is that in the scriptures", "God never clearly revealed that", "I don't think that's actually what will happen" and "it's just speculation".

Where we used to believe, now we doubt.

[Robert F. Smith]

This I understand.

But as time goes on it seems we want more and more that God specifically say things rather than accepting on faith.

I mean, for over a century it was standard teaching in the Church that one day the exalted saints would become like God and eventually preside over our own creations.  This was taught, reiterated, expounded upon, and became a defining part of Mormonism.  Now it's "where is that in the scriptures", "God never clearly revealed that", "I don't think that's actually what will happen" and "it's just speculation".

Where we used to believe, now we doubt.

Speak for yourself, professor.

As for rameumptom, he misled you, and he is clearly not familiar with the many theological tomes available on Mormonism.  We have a rich and complex theology, which both amazes and surpasses the normative and failed theologies of the remainder of the world.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

"Tradition"?  You guys mean like this (use full screen, and be patient)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7V2lxFWBqfI .

Edited September 17, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[JLHPROF]

 

omni, on 15 Sept 2014 - 5:35 PM, said:

"Tradition"?  You guys mean like this (use full screen, and be patient)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7V2lxFWBqfI .

 

 

You aren't having any fun unless you're being condescending or insulting are you?

I don't think conversation with you is beneficial.  I recall a similar one several months back that went the same way.

You may think as you please about me, analyze me to your hearts content and maintain your superior position. 

I think I will make use of the board's ignore feature so I can enjoy my time here.

Have a nice life.

Edited September 17, 2014 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

JLHPROF, hi.

 

My ONLY experience with Mormonism is on the internet going back to the Fall of 2000, when a site like this one was started called Zion Lighthouse Message Board, ZLMB. It suffered in my opinion, from having too much commitment to the principle of allowing everyone to speak out with very little control. If I am not mistaken, its virtual takeover by personalities who were hostile to LDS claims led in part to the eventual formation of this forum, with some of its tighter, and in my opinion, prudent controls.

 

There was one clever individual, also hostile to your Church who will be nameless here, but some will remember. He posed an idea to the Mormons there which at the time was according to my recollection, vigorously criticised by the Mormons present. He claimed that there was a dichotomy between what he labelled Internet Mormons as opposed to what he labelled Chapel Mormons. Having little to no experience of "Chapel Mormonism", I was willing to dismiss his claims, although I never forgot his ideas on this. Subsequently, it has seemed to me that there is a great deal of insight in to the reality of the situation that this fellow saw well over a decade ago. I say that because it seems to me like you are repeating the same ideas as he. The difference is only that your voice is as a faithful Mormon and his was the voice of one who seemed determined to ridicule Mormonism. 

 

I think some here will recall this discussion at ZLMB and can reply as to the accuracy of my recollection.

 

3DOP   

 

I think that the Chapel Mormons and the Internet Mormons (if there even is such a distinction) are perhaps becoming more indistinguishable from each other. 

That would have been an interesting discussion I'm sure.

[Robert F. Smith]

You aren't having any fun unless you're being condescending or insulting are you?

I don't think conversation with you is beneficial.  I recall a similar one several months back that went the same way.

You may think as you please about me, analyze me to your hearts content and maintain your superior position. 

I think I will make use of the board's ignore feature so I can enjoy my time here.

Have a nice life.

Another feature of those who are raised in a humorless, and very strict environment is that they are unable to roll with the punches.  Unlike a reed which bends with the wind, they are brittle and snap at any real opposition -- even though Lehi assures us that there must be opposition in all things.   For you, a jolt of reality is condescending or insulting, and you lash out at me as enjoying it.  Who is doing the psychoanalysis now?

 

Tevye's message on tradition was very simply that he didn't know from whence it came and couldn't explain it (except for the cap and tsitsits).  It was a given and part of his world.  Of his community.  Faith traditions frequently come fully clothed.  You need to follow Socrates in asking the right questions instead of going away in a huff.

[rpn]

1.   The word of wisdom as a commandment was established by revelation to Heber J. Grant, common consent in 1921. 

 

2.   Trouble usually comes in areas where there isn't much scripture or revelation.   I'd say most Mormons do believe they can become like Heavenly Father.  But as Pres. Hinckley said in a secular forum, that doesn't mean that we will be equal to Him (not his exact words, and he did not claim a revelation in the way he responded)--- He will remain our Father.   But there is literally nothing saying that in scripture itself, or announced revelation.    Such belief logically follows the little we do know.

[HappyJackWagon]

"1. The word of wisdom as a commandment was established by revelation to Heber J. Grant, common consent in 1921."

Do you have a source for the common consent. I thought it was more of a pronouncement or policy.

[rpn]

I don't recall where I learned that.  A conference vote?

[Boanerges]

"1. The word of wisdom as a commandment was established by revelation to Heber J. Grant, common consent in 1921."

Do you have a source for the common consent. I thought it was more of a pronouncement or policy.

 

I thought everyting we voted on was in the scriptures - such as OD 1 & OD 2

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I thought everyting we voted on was in the scriptures - such as OD 1 & OD 2

 

Yes, to be official doctrine or cannonized scripture it must be voted on by common consent. D&C 89 was voted un along with the rest of the D&C but this was accepted as "counsel" for many years until it took on "commandment" status. If there is a revelation stating that it should be commandment, I'm not aware of that.

D&C 89:2 reads ...

2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

Something clearly changed but I've always viewed that as more of a policy issue than a doctrinal one or commandment. By policy the brethren could remove the question from the TR Interview tomorrow if they wanted.

[Alan]

I think it is significant that the revelation (we must remember this is a revelation not a policy or tradition) goes out of it's way to say it isn't a commandment. I can't recall any other revelation that does that. It's as if the Lord was anticipating what some would do with it.

 

I have said before and I'll say it again. I choose to obey the WoW because it is good advice, and is even described as a "greeting" sent from the Lord. But it is not, and never has been, a commandment. Men, no matter who they are, do not have the authority to make something a commandment in the absence of revelation. 

 

On the other hand, emphasis of the WoW is a good thing in the church. The experience of the RLDS, who didn't emphasis it, is a sobering lesson.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I have said before and I'll say it again. I choose to obey the WoW because it is good advice, and is even described as a "greeting" sent from the Lord. But it is not, and never has been, a commandment. Men, no matter who they are, do not have the authority to make something a commandment in the absence of revelation.

 

Agreed. Of course it is now effectively a commandment in the church because of the penalties if it is not followed.