Curious about cafeteria doctrines

[CV75]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Yep. And this is my "dilemma."  The Church doesn't want to hear it. So I suppose like Joseph Smith I stand alone in it. Although he was never quite alone. I suppose some others feel similarly about some things they believe. I suppose all I can say is chin up, soldier on, and know in this respect you are not alone.

I think this gets back to expectations... what is the correct expectation for us to have of the Church? And the Church for us?

For example, what do you mean by "The Church doesn't want to hear it?" What does "it" refer to?

I think an excellent summary of what the Church expects is laid out in 3 Nephi 11. It includes clear instruction on what the Lord does not want to hear.

What is the correct expectation for us to have of our leaders, and how would this ease our dilemma when they say something we don't agree with, understand or find difficult to accept? I think a big part of the answer to that is having the correct expectation (i.e. faith, hope, charity, grace) of the Lord Himself.

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

So, no one has really brought up scriptural points they have real issues with - polygamy was brought up but not really as a personal issue.  

1. Does anyone have real issues pertaining to specific scripture(s)?

2. If everyone believes all the church scriptures, then are people leaving not for gospel-related reasons but for historical reasons?

If you mean do I have issues with anything in the scriptures, I do not.
If yo mean do I have issues with current interpretation of the scriptures I do, and I have stated them here on several occasions.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

So, no one has really brought up scriptural points they have real issues with - polygamy was brought up but not really as a personal issue.  

1. Does anyone have real issues pertaining to specific scripture(s)?

2. If everyone believes all the church scriptures, then are people leaving not for gospel-related reasons but for historical reasons?

1. Evidently not;

2. I think there are all sorts of other reasons people might give than a historical interpretation. It's more like a smorgasbord than a cafeteria.

I also think people can have issues unrelated to scriptures and history and not leave, nor should they. For example, @JLHPROF mentioned issues with current interpretation of the scriptures, but I don't see him leaving any time soon.

I recommend the connoisseur approach: taste religion from the banquet, the street, the diner, the truck, the free cocktail buffet, catered, al fresco...

Edited September 21, 2017 by CV75

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think this gets back to expectations... what is the correct expectation for us to have of the Church? And the Church for us?

For example, what do you mean by "The Church doesn't want to hear it?" What does "it" refer to?

The Church doesn't want to hear that the correlation committee could be wrong about Moses being the head of a dispensation. They don't want to hear their dominant narrative about a marvelous work and a wonder could be wrong. The Church doesn't want to hear that its narrative interpretation of 3 Nephi 20-1 could be wrong. They don't want to hear that its interpretation of D&C is wrong and that some obscure bishop is not the one prophesied. They don't want to hear that these two prophecies are actually the same person. There is a knee jerk response when it is even brought up. Witness viz a viz the response when one brings up the one mighty and strong on this board. So one wonders whether the Church is really concerned about truth or not. There is no room for a dissenting voice about much in the Church. Would one find it ironic that the Church promotes daily reading of the Book of Mormon, when it doesn't really believe it?

Quote

I think an excellent summary of what the Church expects is laid out in 3 Nephi 11. It includes clear instruction on what the Lord does not want to hear.

What is the correct expectation for us to have of our leaders, and how would this ease our dilemma when they say something we don't agree with, understand or find difficult to accept? I think a big part of the answer to that is having the correct expectation (i.e. faith, hope, charity, grace) of the Lord Himself.

If you are saying that I shouldn't air any difference with the Presidency, then perhaps the Presidency did the wrong thing to denounce the "Adam-God theory?" I am not trying to destroy testimonies here.  I am not trying to encourage people to leave the church. I am just suggesting maybe members should pray about things they have questions about. Maybe every comment made over the 200 yr history of the Church  should not be taken at face value. Maybe people can have valid, strong testimonies of the gospel even if they have certain disagreements. If I question what some past president has said am I inviting in "The spirit of contention?" As 3 Nephi 11 says "Christ’s doctrine is that men should believe and be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost." I promote this - believe truth. Test prophets. Pray about these things. That is all. Are you entitled to confirmation by the Holy Spirit? Does the Church really practice this? I believe I have shown faith and charity towards BY. I have tried to be quite fair to him, and even aired support for many of his comments about Adam. Am I doing something evil by not believing everything he said? I hope not. I believe there is a balance here the Church has not learned.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/19/2017 at 9:14 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly, and that is why I say that Mormonism is a way of life more than a matter of belief.  Actions speak louder than words.  James 1:22-27, 2:14-26.

Not long ago, historical polygamy roiled this board, and many were even incensed that a man can be sealed to one woman today, and if she passes before him he can be sealed to another -- serial polygamy.  Carol Lynn Pearson even came out with a hard-hitting book attacking both past and present (de facto) polygamy.  She felt that such a doctrine is a betrayal.  This is an area of discomfort.  Yet it doesn't get discussed at Church.

As it should not be!   Church is not for apologetics or polemics for one position or another- it is for worship and mutual edification in harmony about the BASICS of the gospel- matters upon which we all agree.

Suppose one knew that one was in the minority on a political opinion within a specific group of people, say, at  party.

Apologetics at church is like debating politics at a cocktail party with your boss and co-workers- it's just rude and out of place!  It violates the purpose of the gathering.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/19/2017 at 7:41 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Humans (including Mormon humans) are remarkably capable of compartmentalizing disparate and incompatible beliefs -- at least on a temporary, ad hoc basis, if they are even aware of such incompatibilities.  Systematic thinking, like systematic theology, seems unnecessary to being a good Mormon.

On the other hand, I personally feel no discomfort in harboring beliefs which OTHERS may think are incompatible, the objective "correctness" of which is unknowable.

An example is a world-wide flood.   Words are ambiguous.  What is a "world"?  We use it to describe the "Wonderful World of Disney".  We describe "my little world" or "In his world it's ok because ........"   

Was the world created in 6 days?   Is it logically possible?  Bertrand Russell knew it was possible though ridiculously unlikely.

If my world view shifts dramatically in a few days, has my little world been made anew in 6 days?

When we think in parables, one might discuss the Tower of Babel story as making the same point as my siggy below makes about language being "confounded" so that we cannot discuss spiritual things.  The idea of "language games" in Wittgenstein can be seen as a "confirmaton" of that story.

So if I teach the confounding of languages in church in terms of the Tower of Babel, am I "compartmentalizing" if I am actually teaching Wittgenstein or Rorty in my mind?

Are they "different ideas"?

Obviously that depends on the language game of the discussion.    We have to teach to the understanding of others for communication to happen!

I think it is possible to have a Mormon systematic theology if that includes the concept of language games in scriptural hermeneutics.  There are many possible interpretations of any sentence, and that ambiguity is amplified in scripture.  In short that is why I think orthopraxis is the key.  

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

The Church doesn't want to hear that the correlation committee could be wrong about Moses being the head of a dispensation. They don't want to hear their dominant narrative about a marvelous work and a wonder could be wrong. The Church doesn't want to hear that its narrative interpretation of 3 Nephi 20-1 could be wrong. They don't want to hear that its interpretation of D&C is wrong and that some obscure bishop is not the one prophesied. They don't want to hear that these two prophecies are actually the same person. There is a knee jerk response when it is even brought up. Witness viz a viz the response when one brings up the one mighty and strong on this board. So one wonders whether the Church is really concerned about truth or not. There is no room for a dissenting voice about much in the Church. Would one find it ironic that the Church promotes daily reading of the Book of Mormon, when it doesn't really believe it?

If you are saying that I shouldn't air any difference with the Presidency, then perhaps the Presidency did the wrong thing to denounce the "Adam-God theory?" I am not trying to destroy testimonies here.  I am not trying to encourage people to leave the church. I am just suggesting maybe members should pray about things they have questions about. Maybe every comment made over the 200 yr history of the Church  should not be taken at face value. Maybe people can have valid, strong testimonies of the gospel even if they have certain disagreements. If I question what some past president has said am I inviting in "The spirit of contention?" As 3 Nephi 11 says "Christ’s doctrine is that men should believe and be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost." I promote this - believe truth. Test prophets. Pray about these things. That is all. Are you entitled to confirmation by the Holy Spirit? Does the Church really practice this? I believe I have shown faith and charity towards BY. I have tried to be quite fair to him, and even aired support for many of his comments about Adam. Am I doing something evil by not believing everything he said? I hope not. I believe there is a balance here the Church has not learned.

 

Sorry I can’t figure out what you mean with the examples – each seems to merit a discussion thread of their own, though, and examples of the Church’s formal rejection of the idea and why it is rejected.

A dissenting voice is a funny thing: it depends I think on the spirit in or with which the variance is expressed (preferably charitably) and the forum in which it is expressed (preferably councils). Jesus condemns disputation and contention, but good faith discussion on anything, especially in councils, seems perfectly fine.

I’m not sure what you mean by “air,” but I think my comments on dissent would apply. Do you have some examples of the Church not encouraging people to pray about things they have questions about? or insist that we take every comment made over the 200 year history of the Church at face value? If these are the reasons for your call for “balance,” if you do not have good examples, the Church doesn’t really seem to be the problem.

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Sorry I can’t figure out what you mean with the examples – each seems to merit a discussion thread of their own, though, and examples of the Church’s formal rejection of the idea and why it is rejected.

A dissenting voice is a funny thing: it depends I think on the spirit in or with which the variance is expressed (preferably charitably) and the forum in which it is expressed (preferably councils). Jesus condemns disputation and contention, but good faith discussion on anything, especially in councils, seems perfectly fine.

I’m not sure what you mean by “air,” but I think my comments on dissent would apply. Do you have some examples of the Church not encouraging people to pray about things they have questions about? or insist that we take every comment made over the 200 year history of the Church at face value? If these are the reasons for your call for “balance,” if you do not have good examples, the Church doesn’t really seem to be the problem.

Personal dissention is not contention. Yeshua corrected the Pharisees. Correction is not necessarily contention. Yeshua wanted the Church to be one. The Church has never managed this. I have not contended with the Church. I simply pursue truth. It is up to the Church to decide what is true. To do this it seems they should seek guidance. That is the currently the job of the Holy Spirit.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If you mean do I have issues with anything in the scriptures, I do not.
If yo mean do I have issues with current interpretation of the scriptures I do, and I have stated them here on several occasions.

Then do you blame people like me..an ex mormon...for my expectations and how I interpreted the teachings/scriptures of the church.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Then do you blame people like me..an ex mormon...for my expectations and how I interpreted the teachings/scriptures of the church.

I hate the word "blame".

I don't blame anyone for any issues with doctrine or history.
I do on occasion get frustrated with how people react to these things.

Why would I blame you for having issues with the teachings or scriptures in the Church?  Nobody has perfect faith or perfect understanding.

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I hate the word "blame".

I don't blame anyone for any issues with doctrine or history.
I do on occasion get frustrated with how people react to these things.

Why would I blame you for having issues with the teachings or scriptures in the Church?  Nobody has perfect faith or perfect understanding.

Thank you....I am sure you don't blame as it is...but I am often blamed..my fault.  But I admire your open honesty and respect your faith in the gospel.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I think it is possible to have a Mormon systematic theology if that includes the concept of language games in scriptural hermeneutics.  There are many possible interpretations of any sentence, and that ambiguity is amplified in scripture. 

Mark, I am having some difficulty conceptualizing what you are saying here. Maybe some examples would help. What would a theology look like which includes "language games" in scriptural hermeneutics?

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Personal dissention is not contention. Yeshua corrected the Pharisees. Correction is not necessarily contention. Yeshua wanted the Church to be one. The Church has never managed this. I have not contended with the Church. I simply pursue truth. It is up to the Church to decide what is true. To do this it seems they should seek guidance. That is the currently the job of the Holy Spirit.

Like I said, some concrete examples of the Church not encouraging people to pray about things they have questions about or insisting that we take every comment made over the 200 year history of the Church at face value would help me understand what you're referring to.

[RevTestament]

27 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Then do you blame people like me..an ex mormon...for my expectations and how I interpreted the teachings/scriptures of the church.

As I think this thread is trying to illustrate, there are reasons to have different interpretations than some which have been taught. I have listed a couple of things I do not personally accept, and which I think are not currently taught as doctrine. I have not really discussed my scriptural reasons for not accepting them, but I certainly can if any so desire. I think there is a lot of room to believe and live the gospel while not accepting or believing everything which has been promulgated about all the various scriptures of the Church. I think the Church itself acknowledges this to some extent, but expects you not to teach your ideas to others to the extent that you may be trying to lead them away from the Church. I guess some get excommunicated and others just go inactive, but many stay and live happily in the Church. One point of this thread is there is certainly room for the latter in the Church. There is room for you in the Church. 

I remember a discussion I had with a couple last year. Somehow the subject of polygamy came up, and I could tell it made her quite uncomfortable when I told her I didn't believe polygamy was unscriptural. My response to people who hold a dislike of polygamy is not to live it. There is room in the Church for different interpretations of scripture because as Mark pointed out above, scripture has to be interpreted to be understood and lived. There is just no Church on the earth which has members which agree on everything in this regard.

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

As I think this thread is trying to illustrate, there are reasons to have different interpretations than some which have been taught. I have listed a couple of things I do not personally accept, and which I think are not currently taught as doctrine. I have not really discussed my scriptural reasons for not accepting them, but I certainly can if any so desire. I think there is a lot of room to believe and live the gospel while not accepting or believing everything which has been promulgated about all the various scriptures of the Church. I think the Church itself acknowledges this to some extent, but expects you not to teach your ideas to others to the extent that you may be trying to lead them away from the Church. I guess some get excommunicated and others just go inactive, but many stay and live happily in the Church. One point of this thread is there is certainly room for the latter in the Church. There is room for you in the Church. 

I remember a discussion I had with a couple last year. Somehow the subject of polygamy came up, and I could tell it made her quite uncomfortable when I told her I didn't believe polygamy was unscriptural. My response to people who hold a dislike of polygamy is not to live it. There is room in the Church for different interpretations of scripture because as Mark pointed out above, scripture has to be interpreted to be understood and lived. There is just no Church on the earth which has members which agree on everything in this regard.

Thank you for your perspective on things.  I do listen and appreciate your thoughts and input.  We are not all going to agree...but the conversation and listening could save someone in a way that you could not imagine.  There was a geat lonliness and no one to talk to in my disaffection.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Jeanne

[RevTestament]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Like I said, some concrete examples of the Church not encouraging people to pray about things they have questions about or insisting that we take every comment made over the 200 year history of the Church at face value would help me understand what you're referring to.

I think the comments are more on the order of following the living prophets.

I am glad Brigham Young was not my president. I suspect he may have given a talk or two I would walk out on. I admire his accomplishments and I believe he had some poignant insights, but no, I am not going to follow everything he said. The Church seems to have a convenient disconnect between past and present. 

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you for your perspective on things.  I do listen and appreciate your thoughts and input.  We are not all going to agree...but the conversation and listening could save someone in a way that you could not imagine.  There was a geat lonliness and no one to talk to in my disaffection.

I certainly understand this Jeanne. I hope you have overcome this loneliness. I am actually trying to reach those who feel disaffected. To an extent I feel disaffected too. I am sure Jesus did as well so you are in good company in this regard  

Luke 4:24

24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is ^aaccepted in his own country.

 

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I do not have time to quote mine right now but apostles have said they do not know how Jesus took upon himself the sins and suffering of the world.

As I've said before in this thread, if you think you understand the atonement, you don't understand the atonement.  And I'd be willing to be that this applies to the apostles as well.  Although I wouldn't be surprised if they had a much better understanding than I do.

 

[Stargazer]

24 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think the comments are more on the order of following the living prophets.

I am glad Brigham Young was not my president. I suspect he may have given a talk or two I would walk out on. I admire his accomplishments and I believe he had some poignant insights, but no, I am not going to follow everything he said. The Church seems to have a convenient disconnect between past and present. 

Have you ever read the King Follett Discourse?

[RevTestament]

26 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Have you ever read the King Follett Discourse?

Which version?

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Have you ever read the King Follett Discourse?

 

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Which version?

There may be differing versions, but the doctrine taught is pretty consistent between them.
Especially the primary doctrine of man's exaltation to godhood.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

..............................................................................  What is a "world"?  We use it to describe the "Wonderful World of Disney".  We describe "my little world" or "In his world it's ok because ........"   

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

......................................................... orthopraxis is the key.  

And that is the heart and soul of Mormonism.

[RevTestament]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There may be differing versions, but the doctrine taught is pretty consistent between them.
Especially the primary doctrine of man's exaltation to godhood.

I agree. The answer is yes, I have read the version in the Church magazine. I have also read something which included most of the various major differences. In some senses it was nothing new. Joseph Smith was interpreting something Jesus taught. As far as I can recall I might say I reached these same conclusions on "my own" but I believe the Lord led me to them. Then I paid more attention the King Follett discourse. I didn't just read blurbs from it, but read it as I indicate above. He is giving key principles of the oracles of God, which I pose the Church has either forgotten or not understood.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I think the comments are more on the order of following the living prophets.

I am glad Brigham Young was not my president. I suspect he may have given a talk or two I would walk out on. I admire his accomplishments and I believe he had some poignant insights, but no, I am not going to follow everything he said. The Church seems to have a convenient disconnect between past and present. 

In all of our scriptures, the term “true and living” is reserved for God.

Except D&C 1:30, when He refers to the “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually.”

But there are no true and living people. We are not accountable for sustaining and following any individual, except within the bounds of his calling and office within the true and living Church. It is well to know history and how things have changed over time, but she is a true and living Church, so it is essential to stay current.

I don’t think we are meant to sustain and follow any of the dead prophets, no matter how much they merit praise and honor for their sacrifices, contributions and leadership. We weren’t there to raise our hands. They aren’t here now to need our sustaining. We can’t fully understand the “language” of their times as contemporaries. If we were to go back in time, we wouldn’t be able to handle it.

We are urged to have a testimony of Joseph Smith as the prophet ushering in this dispensation. We should have a testimony of the living prophet in our day being called of God and we sustain him while in office. As far as catching up with everything ever said (my goodness) that is why we have the gift of the Holy Ghost and learn line upon line in wisdom and in order.

As a convert in college, I was ordained an Elder at age 20. I figured I had a lot to catch up on, so I read Mormon Doctrine cover to cover over spring break. I read many passages more than once due to the cross-referencing. I didn’t want to miss a thing. I had a sense of urgency about having to know all I could. The tone the author used often didn’t agree with me, but I pressed on and got through it without worrying about the things that sounded a little bit “off” to me. Compared to what I knew to be true, the things that weren’t fully acceptable weren’t the least bit bothersome – and he was living at the time! I accepted them as “good enough for now,” almost as placeholder concepts that didn’t have much bearing on my “pure religion and undefiled before God.”

I prefer to see the Church as having the freedom of being “true and living” than as having a “convenient disconnect” from the past (I mean, that’s like saying your body heading into its prime has a convenient disconnect from its infancy--how counterproductive is that?).

[Stargazer]

29 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I agree. The answer is yes, I have read the version in the Church magazine. I have also read something which included most of the various major differences. In some senses it was nothing new. Joseph Smith was interpreting something Jesus taught. As far as I can recall I might say I reached these same conclusions on "my own" but I believe the Lord led me to them. Then I paid more attention the King Follett discourse. I didn't just read blurbs from it, but read it as I indicate above. He is giving key principles of the oracles of God, which I pose the Church has either forgotten or not understood.

I suspect that it is the membership of the Church, and not the Church as an institution, that has not understood, and finds it difficult to accept. I believe that Joseph said as much.  He taught them as much as they were willing to bear, or as much as the Lord knew they were willing to hear.

I am fairly convinced that none of us really understand who we are.  We say we're the sons and daughters of God, but that's just words.  What that entails is something we're apparently not quite able to take in.  At this stage of existence, anyway.