Two "Mormonisms"- Do Either Describe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So is it compatible for a church to be BOTH "true and living"?

It is also believed generally that the Truth is eternal and unchanging and consists of creeds and rules and beliefs "written in stone".

Perhaps that's not what the Lord meant when He used the phrase "true and living." 

I don't know that he meant true to mean that which is unchangeably false.

Instead, I think he meant true as in "valid" or maybe "faithful" or maybe even simply "untainted" (you know, like the flagon with the dragon).  

 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, ttribe said:

Given the spelling in your thread title, I have to ask, are you a member of this LDS Church - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/about-us?lang=eng ; or are you a member of this one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints_(Strangite) ?

No, just Strange.

[Hamba Tuhan]

'We shall not cease from exploration
'And the end of all our exploring
'Will be to arrive where we started
'And know the place for the first time.'

                                      - T.S. Eliot

I find that personal revelation always takes me back to the prophets.

But it is sometimes something of a journey to get there.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Nofear said:

There were two items that I can't seem to find a quote for. If somebody has them, that'd be awesome if you linked it.

One was about the inherit uncertainty and terror even of a church that believes in continuing revelation and not dogma. It means that a new revelation could come along and "rewrite" much of what has been written. Not exactly a safe position. Dogmas, by definition, can't be overwritten.

The other was a General Conference talk from one of the apostles about the importance of latter-day prophets (or more precisely the presiding high priest) and their authority to speak on whatever God wants them to and that they can say hard things. He then made the comment that qualified things a little using the example if the prophet declared the Book of Mormon untrue the Brethren would probably look at each other some before just accepting it.

Imo, NO ONE should follow anyone or any church, blindly.  Period. 

I joined the church soon after the Jim Jones thing and was highly aware of people "drinking the kool aid" in a mass suicide.

But think it thru- the Moroni promise essentially says that our conscience can tell us which church to join or un-join.

There can be no fear if conscience trumps ANY leader. There can be no blind obedience or believing Moroni is inconsistent at least in the paradigm, assuming it is justified 

[CV75]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Imo, NO ONE should follow anyone or any church, blindly.  Period. 

I joined the church soon after the Jim Jones thing and was highly aware of people "drinking the kool aid" in a mass suicide.

But think it thru- the Moroni promise essentially says that our conscience can tell us which church to join or un-join.

There can be no fear if conscience trumps ANY leader. There can be no blind obedience or believing Moroni is inconsistent at least in the paradigm, assuming it is justified 

Perhaps a finer (but stronger) point, he says "will" not "can". This is why I'll never tell someone else the Lord did not tell them to leave the Church. I might think it, but I won't say it. What else are they to go by, or at least stand by, than their conscience, whatever they tell themselves?

[Nofear]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Imo, NO ONE should follow anyone or any church, blindly.  Period. 

I joined the church soon after the Jim Jones thing and was highly aware of people "drinking the kool aid" in a mass suicide.

But think it thru- the Moroni promise essentially says that our conscience can tell us which church to join or un-join.

There can be no fear if conscience trumps ANY leader. There can be no blind obedience or believing Moroni is inconsistent at least in the paradigm, assuming it is justified 

I quite agree with with that sentiment. Many times blind obedience is worse than disobedience.

[Nofear]

I might also add that one of the beautiful things about the introduction of prophets is that is provides a check and balance system.
A. Personal revelation/inspiration
B. Prophets and scripture

If A and B are in alignment, that provides some confidence we are on the right path. If A and B are in contradiction, then likely you and/or the prophet are in error, at least in some respect. Prophet doesn't trump one's own inspiration but it does mean that we need to review/check ourselves and potentially hold in abeyance our actions. If the prophet is in error, in due time the Lord will correct him (though that may take decades).

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I might also add that one of the beautiful things about the introduction of prophets is that is provides a check and balance system.
A. Personal revelation/inspiration
B. Prophets and scripture

If A and B are in alignment, that provides some confidence we are on the right path. If A and B are in contradiction, then likely you and/or the prophet are in error, at least in some respect. Prophet doesn't trump one's own inspiration but it does mean that we need to review/check ourselves and potentially hold in abeyance our actions. If the prophet is in error, in due time the Lord will correct him (though that may take decades).

And yet a living prophet is an essential feature of the "true and living church" according to D&C 20:61. The most essential feature, of course, is Christ Himself at the head. So, whether the prophet is correct or not is secondary to the church being true and living anyway, and both a secondary to your / our agency, or conscience, perceptions, etc.

I also like the that the full phrase from D&C 1:30 refers to the church on the face of the earth (and not say, Zion above or the Church of the Firstborn), and that He is well pleased with the design of prophets called by the holy order of God to lay its foundation and bring it forth (e.g., Alma 5:44; 6:8; 8:4; 13:6; 43:2; Ether 12:10).

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

And yet a living prophet is an essential feature of the "true and living church" according to D&C 20:61. The most essential feature, of course, is Christ Himself at the head. So, whether the prophet is correct or not is secondary to the church being true and living anyway, and both a secondary to your / our agency, or conscience, perceptions, etc.

I also like the that the full phrase from D&C 1:30 refers to the church on the face of the earth (and not say, Zion above or the Church of the Firstborn), and that He is well pleased with the design of prophets called by the holy order of God to lay its foundation and bring it forth (e.g., Alma 5:44; 6:8; 8:4; 13:6; 43:2; Ether 12:10).

Quite agree that prophets are necessary. Or more specifically, the authority/priesthood keys. That authority/priesthood keys is independent of the opinions or ideas of the individual holding them (or as you put it, the opinions (whether correct or not) is secondary to the authority).

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Quite agree that prophets are necessary. Or more specifically, the authority/priesthood keys. That authority/priesthood keys is independent of the opinions or ideas of the individual holding them (or as you put it, the opinions (whether correct or not) is secondary to the authority).

Yes, and to me this means that our own opinions, the products of our conscience, are just as secondary to the authority we faithfully abide in as the prophet’s. Our daily walk and conversation are ultimately the expression of who and what we are. Given that this is a gospel of repentance (change of conscience), we are called to remain open to correction (light) while refraining from contention (darkness) and uniting under the structure of the true and living church.

[smac97]

On 9/8/2022 at 12:32 PM, mfbukowski said:

I have used the term "Mormonism" specifically to refer to popular conceptions about the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Yes.  The whole kit-n-kaboodle.  The institutional and visible "Church," its doctrines and beliefs and practices, its members and their behaviors, its "culture," and so on.

On 9/8/2022 at 12:32 PM, mfbukowski said:

We believe/are taught to believe (these two choices reflect the problem of the "Two Mormonisms") that we are the only "true and living church" on the earth today.

So is it compatible for a church to be BOTH "true and living"?

I don't really understand the question.

On 9/8/2022 at 12:32 PM, mfbukowski said:

It is also believed generally that the Truth is eternal and unchanging and consists of creeds and rules and beliefs "written in stone".

I'm not sure that was the intended meaning in "true and living."

On 9/8/2022 at 12:32 PM, mfbukowski said:

So should true believers believe in solid and unchangealble rules and regulations that are not to be questioned? 

Some very basic precepts, yes.  Otherwise, no.

The answer, I think, may be understood by applying the principles explained by Elder Bednar in two books, "Increase in Learning" and "Act in Doctrine."  This article summarizes things this way:

Quote

What are Doctrines, Principles & Applications?

A few days ago, I was discussing a particular study method with a friend and one step in the process was: “identifying and understanding doctrines and principles”. So as I commonly do, I asked myself “so what’s the difference between a doctrine and a principle”. The more I thought about it, I realized that I didn’t have a clear definition for either in my mind.

I decided to go back to a book that a friend gave me for Christmas called  “Act in Doctrine” by David A. Bednar. On pages xiv-xv in the Preface he defines what doctrines and principles are and then notes a third essential element: Applications. I’ve boiled down his descriptions into the following simplified versions:

• Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
• Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
• Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

Elder Bednar points out that “Our tendency as members of the Church is to focus on applications. But as we learn to ask ourselves, ‘What doctrines and principles, if understood, would help with this challenge?’ we come to realize that the answers always are in the doctrines and principles of the gospel” (pg. xv)

Doctrines answer the question of “why” and Elder Bednar suggests that the doctrine of the Atonement explains why Jesus is our advocate with the Father. He writes that principles answer the question of “what”; some examples are repentance, baptism, service, charity, etc. Applications answer the question of “how”, and provide the specifics of how something needs to be done. While the Church does teach applications, like in the case of ordinances and administrative duties, etc., it is necessary that many applications are individually personalized to us by the Spirit.

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

I think "doctrines" do not change (though our understanding of them can be improved, enhanced, added to, etc.).

I think "principles" broadly do not change/

"Applications" can and do change.

I think it is important that we not unduly conflate these three things.  We need to be both steadfast in obedience to "doctrines" and "principles," while also flexible enough to adapt to specific circumstances, to give the Brethren leeway to govern the Church, etc.

On 9/8/2022 at 12:32 PM, mfbukowski said:

Where even temple recommend questions set unacceptable boundaries to our freedoms to believe what we want?

But wait!

It also says "true and LIVING church"  !

What could the words "a living church" possibly mean?

It seems that it is taken to mean- and yes- this is also my personal belief, - that we are open to personal revelation continually, and have an open canon, that scriptures are given to us to be interpreted for our own situations, and that we ought to be more concerned with emulating Christ than being scrupulous about following "rules" and feeling restricted and dominated.

So which Mormonism is right?  

Some apparantly believe it is one or the other and cannot be both; I feel that this is the underlying issue on this board that fuels virtually EVERY discussion.

So what is important, the critics may ask, oppressive rule following or loosie goosie, alleged personal revelation that lets you believe anything and everything?

How do we balance the "Two Mormonisms" neither of which reflect what the Church actually teaches?

I don't quite understand the "two Mormonisms" you are referencing here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  The whole kit-n-kaboodle.  The institutional and visible "Church," its doctrines and beliefs and practices, its members and their behaviors, its "culture," and so on.

I don't really understand the question.

I'm not sure that was the intended meaning in "true and living."

Some very basic precepts, yes.  Otherwise, no.

The answer, I think, may be understood by applying the principles explained by Elder Bednar in two books, "Increase in Learning" and "Act in Doctrine."  This article summarizes things this way:

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

I think "doctrines" do not change (though our understanding of them can be improved, enhanced, added to, etc.).

I think "principles" broadly do not change/

"Applications" can and do change.

I think it is important that we not unduly conflate these three things.  We need to be both steadfast in obedience to "doctrines" and "principles," while also flexible enough to adapt to specific circumstances, to give the Brethren leeway to govern the Church, etc.

I don't quite understand the "two Mormonisms" you are referencing here.

Thanks,

-Smac

May I suggest, and I might be mistaken, that the first kind is influenced by traditional Western (Greek) philosophies that have been implanted in the nations of the western hemisphere, and which pertain to absolutes, and the second kind reflects eastern philosophies, including those of the ancient middle east, which pertain to "being" and "becoming", which are much less-ingrained in the USA for example.

[JLHPROF]

23 hours ago, Jerry Atric said:

Do you believe a Christian preacher can help someone in his congregation make it back to God? 

Depends on how you're defining "back to God".

Find God, sure.  Have faith and belief in God and Christ, absolutely.

Enter God's kingdom and presence, no.  That requires authorized priesthood ordinances.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

Perhaps a finer (but stronger) point, he says "will" not "can". This is why I'll never tell someone else the Lord did not tell them to leave the Church. I might think it, but I won't say it. What else are they to go by, or at least stand by, than their conscience, whatever they tell themselves?

Yep.

But "can" is used twice in my post- there may be some nuances there.  Probably they don't amount to anything though.

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep.

But "can" is used twice in my post- there may be some nuances there.  Probably they don't amount to anything though.

Oh, I think they can... or will...  

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Oh, I think they can... or will...  

Sumptin lak dat....  🥶