I caught this op-ed in a local paper from a Mormon claiming to set the record straight on Mormonism. It’s a beauty because it illustrates how and what the average Mormon believes. Errors or ommissions include:
- no discussion of the limited geography model; assumes a hemispheric model of the BofM
- claims the moniker Mormon originated in 1930 (though this is probably a typo)
- no discussion of the complexity behind the term “Christian”; just assumes that if someone calls themselves Christian they are
- considers the prophet equivalent to the pope (infallibility anyone?)
- claims LDS stopped polygamy in 1890 (they said they would in 1890, but didn’t until about 1905)
- claims the RLDS (now Community of Christ) are the ones practicing polygamy; they never did and deplored the practice
I enjoy debating apologists online, but it does get on my nerves when I generalize about Mormon beliefs and they insist that average Mormons don’t believe some of the things they obviously do (e.g., apologists don’t think average Mormons think of the prophet as being infallible; apologists claim average Mormons think about the BofM as they do – a limited geography model or even metaphorical, etc.). IMO, the average Mormon is about where this guy is in his thinking.
That’s funny that he thinks the RLDS are the ones who practice polygamy. I would have thought it was a typo if he hadn’t written a whole paragraph about the RLDS. This guy clearly hasn’t been reading the paper very closely…
This editorial illustrates your point nicely, profxm. I want to be careful though. Ten years ago, I might have written something like that.
OK, I knew that the RLDS did not practice polygamy.
Jen Deetz is making a valiant effort. In my opinion, the brethren let her down.
profxm,
I don’t know where Mormon apologists have been making the claim that the average Mormon doesn’t believe in the simple view espoused above.
I’ve certainly never claimed that.
My only point has always been that it is ACCEPTABLE to view the Church the way I do and remain within the fold.
Well, if apologists don’t explicitly say that your average member sees the BoM as flexibly as they do at very least they think that the average member should and would if they took the time to learn… you know, outside of sunday school.
But the point remains the same … apologist very often have a significantly different view of Mormonism than the average member. And I’ve gotta give the average member credit for largely being more consistent with what the church actually teaches in sunday school.
BTW- my mother was on Bob Lonsbury’s show (www.knrs.com) this morning talking about the different views that the BY and JS families take on the church’s history. One thing really jumped out at me ….
Apparently the JS family thinks polygamy had a prominent role in the life of JS and was an abhorrent part of the church’s history (kind of a tangent to the RLDS view). Yet my mother (probably something of an average member) says that the total absence of polygamy in the JS movie does not represent a kind of revisionist history.
I’d say she’s probably been paying attention to her sunday school lessons. Just sayin’.
You haven’t, Seth, but Blake Ostler does so routinely. So does Daniel Peterson.
And you are not an apologist, Seth.
I do think we have to be careful not to stereotype too much the opinions of those within LDS wards. I’ve found some surprising opinions in the wards I’ve been in. And I say this as someone who has long pridefully felt himself “above the rabble” of “common humble LDS folk.”
Elitism and pride are things I’ve struggled with. So I’m a bit wary of them elsewhere, including the slight hints of stereotyping that occasionally crop up here.
Christopher Smith over at Mild Mannered Musings has an interesting post on the divide that’s showing up in the Church:
http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2008/04/internet-mormonism.html
It makes a distinction between “Chapel Mormons” and “Internet Mormons.”
And wouldn’t “chapel Mormons” be the type that the church would encourage? Also, I’m not so sure references to “typical mormon” or “typical apologist” qualify as stereotyping per se. I think it’s quite fair and useful to speak in terms of common beliefs without fear of being guilty of derogatory and inaccurate categorization. So long as the case can be made even if only by conventional wisdom.
I think that Seth is making a good point. I am more concerned about post-Mormon arrogance than stereotyping though.
As I said earlier, I could have written that letter.
With respect to stereotyping, it’s difficult to know what the people next in the pew might be thinking. After all, the chapel is not exactly a free speech zone and in many Mormon communities there are considerable conformist pressures.
However, if one talks to people in private, they are often much more independent and open minded than they let on in church. And abroad church tends to be a lot less conformist. That’s even true of East coast wards.
What we think privately and what we publicly profess may be out of sync but it is our public professions which count for measurement. At the same time, there are certainly cases where a whole community, ward or clique of members have liberalized the Mormon faith but this does not work as a case against what might be considered “the average Mormon”. So long as people join the church, grow-up in the church, and stay in the church their beliefs will be formed and shaped by what the church actually teaches in Missy discussion, in primary, in Sunday School, in the Ensign, and in GC.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s quite safe to say that your average Mormon is conservative of the church’s core teachings such that all this liberal mormon stuff is just that … liberal and fringe.
Call me arrogant if you will but when I speak with derision of what the church actually teaches its members (and what it doesn’t teach) and which they then parrot to the world as you see in this post’s referenced opinion piece (barring the clear misnomers around the RLDS) I at least do not seek to diminish these beliefs by modifying them to match my own views and assuming that in private your average member would agree with me. This I think is truly arrogant..
I will admit that I probably was somewhat of a peter priesthood as a teenager and b4 going on a mission.
To be quite honest, I believed all those things (except the RLDS or FLDS polygamy thing which I had heard about but knew nothing of).
As far as the prophet goes, I sometimes taught myself to look over weird teachings by saying to myself “I just don’t understand the context” but I believed everything a modern prophet or apostle said w/o doubt.
B4 calling me an idiot let me just say, I believed this b cuz I was taught to KNOW this stuff by my seminary teachers.
(sorry in advance)
I’m afraid too much of LDS/Mormon practice is centered around Details…
OTOH, anti-s & doubters get caught up into this when they/we/I get down in the muck & mud of things like to LGT/UGT. ‘it just doesn’t matter’; What Does is that living Any religion is a matter of Priorities: (I claim) that mine is Love for God & neighbor, with the extent of details I can tolerate as Honesty, Charity, Mercy-Compassion, Repentance-Forgiveness, etc…
I’M NOT PERFECT & DON’T EVEN CLAIM THIS MAKES ME “BETTER” than Anyone Else!!!!!!
Anything more or less than that/those… is just so much poop flowing down an open gutter , gathering attention by the stink & sight to attract attention of those who don’t have anything else better to do.
(again, Sorry if this sounds ‘holier than thou’ … it comes after 40 yrs ‘hooked on details’ & BS, ‘understanding’ that AssHat leaders ‘had to’ speak condescendingly to me ‘to keep me in line’ BARF! I’M AN ADULT!!!
I KNOW WHEN YOU’RE LYING TO ME!
LDS practice is wayyyyyy toooooo judgmental (for me,anyway); that’s ‘as plain as the nose on face’
I enjoy how the “church” never changes, how the word of God is always the same. Like Blacks have always been able to hold the priesthood. If nothing else, it is quite amusing.
Yeah, the church is perfect except for the people. One of these days, they say, we’ll figure out how this makes sense. But, coming to my senses, I gave up and finally admitted that the church is the people … and these people are very odd.
Why do we have to believe that people who haven’t taken the path that we have are stupid, or brainwashed, or helpless victims?
Do our own choices have to come at the expense of our respect for other human beings?
Not necessarily, though in those cases where we do I find that those who simply excoriate other ideas for their provable failings to be vastly more charitable than those who pity the sinner his fate in hell.
I hope my post doesn’t come across as me saying the average Mormon is stupid. That wasn’t my intent. The average Mormon may not be particularly knowledgeable ABOUT Mormonism but that doesn’t make someone stupid. That’s like me saying I’m stupid or not intelligent because I happen to know very little about cephalapods.
My point was not an intelligence thing, it was an accuracy of generalization thing. As a sociologist, I often think in terms of generalizations. The dichotomy between internet Mormons and chapel Mormons is similar to what I was saying – the average Mormon has never heard of the “limited geography model” and knows very little about Joseph Smith’s polygamy, drinking, etc. That’s not an intelligence thing, that’s a knowledge thing. The whole reason I pointed this out was to reinforce my arguments that many Mormons do think like “chapel Mormons”, despite what “internet Mormons” sometimes claim.
profxm – I agree, based on my personal experience I believe there is a strong contrast between what apologists say Mormon’s believe and what most Mormon’s believe. My assumption of this is based on what I learned in Seminary, Institute, and on my mission in Latin America.
I really believed those things to be the way it is. Now that I know better I will talk to some ppl (apologists or apologetic hobbyists) and they tell me that we don’t believe the things I was taught as a youth; then I ask, “Why did they teach me that stuff then?”
To me it almost seems that they adapt the message accordingly in order to retain membership. I won’t go out and say that that is the way it is but it does appear that way from my personal vantage point.
I think part of the problem is that leadership is trained to run an organization – they are excellently suited for that.
But there aren’t really any trained theologians in the leadership pipeline. So they aren’t that careful in safeguarding or nurturing the doctrine. There’s not really much in the way of organization for administering a top-down revising or clarifying of Mormon doctrine.
The way change really works in the Church is that it trickles up the ranks from the bottom. A Stake President will get wind of a problem and pass it on. That kind of thing.
The Church looks authoritarian at first glance. And in a lot of ways, it is. But it is also one of the most democratic institutions as well. It dilutes authority and spreads it out throughout the ranks. So to say that it’s all coming down to us “from on high” from Salt Lake isn’t entirely accurate. Very often, the “Brethren” don’t move on something until there really is a common pulse of consensus throughout the membership that something has changed.
But this “common consent” impulse also makes the leadership very conservative on doctrinal issues and unwilling to move. And since they tend to have more training in running an organization than in advancing doctrine, they focus on that side of things. So we get an impressive temple-building program, but no word on Heavenly Mother.
There is also a heavy impulse to farm out theological matters to the individual church members for their own consideration and revelation. Just because Salt Lake is not sending down stuff on Book of Mormon geography, does not mean that they don’t want the membership studying it out on their own. It really does seem to me that the theology and doctrine of the Church has been entrusted to the membership and not to the General Authorities. And it will not be institutionalized until the membership calls for it to be so institutionalized.
I know this sounds like blaming the victim to you guys, but I think the main reason the church membership “receives not” is because “they ask not.” The membership doesn’t want new doctrine. They aren’t asking for it, they aren’t bothering to study things out. At least, they aren’t doing it as fast as needs to be happening. We’re commanded to seek out learning – and we absolutely ARE NOT limited in where we seek that knowledge. If all saints were scriptorians, scholars, and earnestly seeking truth, I think we’d have a different story here.
So, in short, I think its a mistake to regard Salt Lake as a bunch of theological caretakers. They are organizational caretakers. For better or worse, the theology has been delegated to the body of the Church and the slow pace of doctrinal evolution is probably dependent on how hungry that lay membership feels for the doctrine.
You can call that an organizational failing, or a failing of the membership – as you will.
Let me repeat – I think it’s a mistake to view doctrine as something that travels top-down in this church. It doesn’t travel that way. It travels from the ground up.
Revelation in this Church goes through THE LAY MEMBERSHIP and filters through the General Authorities. So you’ve got the following revelation flow:
God -> The general body of the Church -> local leadership -> the General Authorities -> Church institutions
But we don’t get it, and we sit on our hands waiting for mamma to tell us what to do and what to think.
I will just call it “obviously nothing to do with anything that ever took place in the Old or New Testaments.”
Yeah? How do you figure that?
Seth, I can see your point, but I’m not sure I buy it. Has anyone ever been excommunicated for believing AND THEN teaching openly beliefs that are not in line with those of the leadership? (Hint: Sonia Johnson) If you answer “yes” to that then you’ll have to admit that this is, at best, a 2-way street (doctrine travels down and up), but the “up” street is pretty fracking small and the “down” street is pretty fracking big. Or, better said, the “up” street has a lot of traffic signs, stop lights, and detours while the down street has no traffic signs but virtually no traffic.
Plus, I highly doubt the leadership will listen to Peter Priesthood’s idea on the pre-existence of the hemispheric model, but they might listen to FARMS or FAIR. That means what you really have is a quasi-behind-the-scenes institution/think tank/amateur divinity school that is occasionally able to produce a car that can negotiate the “up” street and make it all the way to the leadership. Without the complete car (e.g., limited geography model), people get no where on the street and don’t have the pull to get there ideas to those who can send the car back down the other side.
I’d love to see your populist ideas enacted, but to get that, I’d have to go to a different religion altogether (e.g., Community of Christ, Methodists, Hindus, etc.).
I’m just pointing out that the concept is actually built-in. And it factors into the present inertia.
A concept being built-in and being realized are two very different things. Can you name a doctrine or belief that originated as a popular belief among the general body that was later instituted as a belief/doctrine by the leadership?
-polygamy – nope
-blacks not getting the priesthood – nope (though a maybe-ish might work here)
-blacks getting the priesthood – maybe-ish?
-god as man – nope
-heavenly mother – nope
-temple ceremony – nope
-mission service – nope
-proclamation on the family – nope
-birth control – nope
-gay marriage – nope
-abortion – nope
Sorry, I just have never seen a “ground-up” movement that led the leadership to change positions.
Seth – I am having a hard time understanding what you wrote – particularly in light of my own experiences. So additional clarification would be helpful.
I don’t think that the leadership does a good job of leading at all – but that is a matter of perspective. Most MBA 101 classes (again, business model, not non profit model) talk about feedback, research, communication and statistics. I’m not sure that the GAs follow that model.
Bishops, SPs and (from all I know) GAs don’t have any sort of formal training do deal with many, many issues. It’s one thing to have a handbook to deal with counseling a battered wife – it’s quite another when she is sitting in front of you. Or if you think someone is stealing tithing funds. Is there a way to even tell if someone high up in leadership is embezzeling?
Let’s take an example of the Book of Abraham or women and the priesthood. I think this has been discussed throughout the lay membership for over 30 years. There is a ton of research out there. A ton of active mormons who have been asking for help. There has to be some bottom up pressure for clarification on it. As yet, nothing has been forthcoming on this issue.
Two examples of bottom up (??) – the 1978 revelation for blacks and the priesthood and the recent apology for MMM.
But – with what’s going on – who knows if those were leadership decisions (listening to the population and what HF revealed to them personally) OR the personal revelation from HF to the leadership. It’s never clearly stated (to the leadership’s advantage).
I am not trying to be disrespectful here.
I just don’t see the evidence of what you are describing.
-temple ceremony – nope
Actually, yes. It has been changed in accordance with the wishes of the membership.
-proclamation on the family – nope
This one was actually a pretty accurate manifestation of popular LDS sentiment.
-birth control – nope
Again, yes. This has totally changed and evolved. And it’s a movement that has come from the members.
-gay marriage – nope
This one is currently in transit as the membership gradually requires a more softer approach.
-abortion – nope
Another softening position that I would argue is being driven by member concerns more than leader concerns.
-birth control – nope
Are you kidding me? This one has done almost an entire 180 and it has been almost solely member-driven.
Another one is the focus on adoption instead of marrying the teenage parents. That’s changed.
The taboo on face cards has been largely discarded – and that pretty-much came from members who just weren’t interested in it still being an issue.
Attitudes on women in careers, marriage ages, number of children, parental roles have all been intensely changed and altered by the membership, with the GAs just along for the ride largely.
Attitudes on Caffeine are largely member-driven. So will further developments in the Word of Wisdom on health-related issues.
Attitudes on earth stewardship and social responsibility are going to be mostly member-driven.
Softening of views on evolution are coming from a portion of the membership (not all).
Needed changes in ward meeting formats will be a ground-up affair.
The mission field is an intense microcosm of this ground-up feedback. Salt Lake is intensely interested in gathering data from individual missionaries, which then drive policies.
Heavenly Mother is quite likely to change at some point in the future. And it will be a member-driven revelation.
When some form of polygamy re-emerges – and my prediction is that, given a hundred years or so, it will – that will be due mostly to the membership.
You’re confusing a slow and subtle current with the absence of any current at all. But you seem to be missing an awful lot that is going on in the Church. Just like people who fixate on the President of the US are going to miss an awful lot of what makes the USA tick.
aerin, I was talking about the leadership in Salt Lake. At the local level, you play the hand you are dealt, with whatever leadership pool is available.
The Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is probably one of the most formidable and well-run organizations in the entire United States. An assertion that I pulled from independent journalists, not just my own tribal pride. This is an impressively well run organization.
That does not always translate well into dealing matters of the individual heart, but the organization is still pretty tight. That’s largely due to the fact that we’re run by hard-nosed professionals rather than scatter-brained theologians.
all these types of discussions are contra to Any Claim that the day-to-day practice of Mormonism…whether LDS, FLDS, RLDS (now Church of Christ) isn’t mired in details. I would guess that the RLDS is the least detailed practice, although I have very little first-hand info on that…
(reprise) determining current MoDoctrine is like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall, BUT: If you’re branded a doubter or a critic, you’ll soon learn how specific they can be…
all these types of discussions are contra to Any Claim that the day-to-day practice of Mormonism…whether LDS, FLDS, RLDS (now Community of Christ) isn’t mired in details. I would guess that the RLDS is the least detailed practice, although I have very little first-hand info on that…
(reprise) determining current MoDoctrine is like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall, BUT: If you’re branded a doubter or a critic, you’ll soon learn how specific they can be…
I thought this might be the result. Here’s the problem with both my argument and yours – Does either of us have any evidence to indicate what the impetus was for change on any of these? You can argue that popular opinion was moving in these directions, which is probably somewhat accurate. But I can argue that the leadership was actually inspired (not that I would) and the change actually solidified popular opinion. How do you tease out causality in an argument like this? It’s basically impossible.
That said, if I’m a bit clearer in my argument, I think you might see my point… I don’t think there is a single case of one individual or even an organized group of individuals not in leadership positions (or part of think tanks) getting together, formalizing a position, and then pushing that to the top in the Mormon religion. This very thing has happened in the Community of Christ (e.g., female ordination, recognition of gay groups, etc.). This isn’t to say the leadership doesn’t pay attention to the opinions of the membership, but is that what causes the changes? And if it is, doesn’t that basically undermine the whole “inspired leadership” aspect of Mormonism?
(My guess is the response here will be a very progressive, liberal interpretation of “inspiration” – e.g., inspiration is just realizing what needs to be done and doing it. That, of course, goes back to the argument I originally made with this post: that’s not what Peter Priesthood is taught and believes.)
No problem, profxm, you didn’t call anyone stupid. It just seems that this type of discussion tends to draw the “who you calling stupid?” card. Fascinating, really.
I think you nailed it with comment 23 and Seth can go on all day about the theoretical, but pragmatically speaking, when it comes to democracy in the church there’s no “there” there … just a well developed mirage. Come on now, this is meant to be a theocracy of men who are assumed to be in regular communication with the all-powerful creator of the universe. To think otherwise is again to confuse one’s liberalized views of the church with what the average member actually believes and experiences.
aerin, really enjoyed your comment as well. Particularly this part:
Damn, just damn.
Guy Noir, I really appreciate your point about the details and of course these detailed points of doctrine combine to form the basis of the church’s claim to exclusive authority. Goes with the territory.
BTW, profxm, did you mention cephalopods? I thought so. This has become my favorite secret keyword.
I see the church being more of a large company with high employee turnover at the bottom. This is especially the case overseas where wards and branches will completely change w/in 2 years. I have seen this firsthand.
The aspect I dislike about this whole discussion about doctrine is that I don’t believe most of these things have anything to do w/ doctrine. I see a lot of these “doctrines” as interpretations of doctrine, which are based on the American culture of the day–when first instituted or a GA’s understanding of how he believes things should be. That is why these things change–sometimes multiple times.
If indeed Christianity were/is true and eternal, I think Thomas Jefferson said it best, “Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian.”
Whether this indeed would have happened I don’t know but I sincerely believe that part of the church’s problem is that they have expanded their “doctrines” beyond their reach. Examples might include modesty and birth control. It would appear this whole thing has reverted back to a pharisee-like atmosphere rather than focusing on what really matters for a TRUE Christian namely, faith, hope, mercy, charity, love, kindness, peacemaking, pure of heart, etc. Yes, this would mean one person’s faith might be made manifest in a different way than another’s but wouldn’t that make Mormon’s all the more unique if they were to take this simple approach.
“Teach proper principles and let the ppl govern themselves.”
Abortion, modesty, and birth control are not principles but interpretations as to how to apply those principles.
But what do I know?
The very definition of Mormonism is “an expansion of Christian doctrine” though the internal PC is “restoration”.
As for “TRUE Christians”? Same as “TRUE Scotsmen” … it’s a fallacy-laden dead-end.
And Thomas Jefferson … well, what can I say? Did he know any better the pure doctrines of Jesus as they came from his lips? Did he know this any better than the next interpretation … than Joseph Smith’s interpretation? Or was this just code for “you’re all a bunch of two-faced nitwits”? I’m just guessing that he didn’t consider himself any wiser on the subject than the next guy … but rather wanted to point out the inconsistency in Christianity as a whole.
And in the end – the difference between mainstream Christianity (American Baptist, American Methodist, American Presbyterian, Lutheran – not Missouri Senate Lutheran) and what you’re suggesting Matt?
I don’t know that we want to get into comparing those mainstream Christian religions, doctrine, training, service, etc.
Totally, I’m not comparing just pointing out the futility of finding true christianity without comparing. And of course comparing is totally futile as well.
I guess I see “expansion of doctrine” as being the expansion of gospel understanding rather than the expansion of behavior management.
I cannot think of one place where Christ condemned an act that wasn’t already condemned prior to his coming. In fact, he didn’t even condemn the woman brought to him in adultery. He didn’t condone it either.
What he did instead was focus on desire and intent. He taught us to not have anger, not to lust, not to judge, etc. These, IMO, are all doctrinal principles and/or ideas NOT expanded behavior management.
I agree that a “TRUE Christian” is a fallacy laden dead end. That is the point I was making. There really can’t be one. However, the church tries to be the ONE TRUE church.
Many statements of Thomas Jefferson conclude that Christianity as a whole had become a disfigured mess. He was not trying to interpret anything for anyone–he was saying, imo, that the problem is that Christian leaders were interpreting Christ’s words rather than letting the ppl take Christ’s words to heart in its purest form.
My point was that the church has done itself a disservice by expanding their behavior management too far and now their membership growth is too big to govern.
Even BKP himself said, “teaching doctrine will change behavior faster than teaching behavior will change behavior.”
Point taken, MomonZero. Of course, from the church’s perspective it’s the whole enchilada and it’s attempts at behavior modification a natural extension of being inspired by god.
Sorry to continue harping on the Jefferson thing, but beneath the quote is the implication of a non-interpreted source of doctrine. I don’t think any individual reader of the Bible — the only available source of Jesus’ supposed words — are anymore likely to come to that one true discernment than the next guy. But the belief in this idea of divine communication to the individual has certainly sprouted into many christian sects (all sects really) including that started by Joseph Smith.
From my perspective (I sit on a large hospital system’s governing board), the way the church is run in nothing at all like a corporation. I am not sure whether comparing the church to a business is going to be too helpful – if it is, do we compare it to a non-profit charitable organization? to a service industry? to a pyramid scheme? If it is just a corporation, it seems to be faltering a bit as growth has undeniably slowed.
As far as bottom up modification is concerned – I think it is very interesting a letter from the lst Presidency was just read in Sacrament Meeting, asking members to not send letters to General Church headquarters, and stating that all letters will be referred back to the SP and bishops. As there is no real standard doctrine that I can find, isn’t this a recipe for fragmentation and chaos? Although supposedly they will accept letters from a SP in behalf of a member.
Most growing organizations I know actively seek input and feedback from the rank and file these days, and do seek to modify policies and procedures to address issues that arise. As far as I can see, the
Church actively seeks to distance themselves from these problems – the big crises that have arisen in the past (ie manifesto and priesthood/blacks) were forced on the church largely from outside the church in order for the church to remain viable and grow, they did not arise so much from the inside. At least that is how I view it at this point. What do you think?
Well, mermaid, I think you’re right and would add one modification … the church has quite a formal system of authorized teaching resources and leadership guidelines which generally get followed down to the lowest leadership levels. I don’t see chaos coming anytime soon so long as the membership generally agrees that the leadership hierarchy is divinely inspired and increasingly so as you follow the chain to the top.
I view ALL the details of religion(s), especially Mormonism as Distractions away from the pure gospel: Love for God & neighbor.
On top of that, LDS, Inc. has a shitty track record for representing the details accurately… They just can’t seem to get them straight, let alone the First Time they’re told.
Someone else (FLAK?) said that the LDS church is more like a franchise operation (McChurch) than a church… Wisdom, indeed.
On all but the most superficial level, it REEKS of an authoritarian HYPE factory, with little attention given to the actual ‘product’, but endless attention to PR/appearances. If T. Monson can’t/doesn’t turn things around, turnover can only increase, and tscc will retrench to it’s former significance to chiefly ‘heritage’ members.
I’m sympathetic, Guy. By the way, how do you define love of god? Is this possible without some attempt to define god? You lost me on the pure gospel being the love of god part. I’m quite certain that most god-loving people find expression of that love in the details of their faith.
Matt:
it is my (personal) belief that all concepts need practical application of have life – meaning that humans can understand.
I think a strong synonym for Love is ‘respect’: If we love/respect God (example) we do not harm or despoil His creations; earth (plants, animals, landscape, etc) or people (our brothers & sisters).
Focus for-of the things I speak of, I’m sorry to say, has been almost completely lost today, and the LDS church hasn’t been helpful at all….(IMHO, anyway).
subtlety is a form of creativity; it also seems lost or disappearing from the scape.
profxm,
Just taking the birth control example… it seems highly, highly unlikely to me that that shift came from the top.
No, I’d bet you it came from various bishops and stake presidents who had to deal with the immediate results of the policy passing their concerns along.
Part of the problem is that these kinds of discussions wind up consisting of people who either aren’t insiders to how leadership in the church works, or have been out of the loop for a long time. It warps the perception of how things are operating inside.
Okay, yes, your point about more important things getting lost in the details … I’m very sympathetic to that and really have no problem with what you refer to as god since it appears to be so subtle as to beg the question as to why you call it god in the first place…if you know what I mean.
My above comment was to Guy Noir, just to be clear.
Hey, Seth … um, maybe your perception is warped as well. Just sayin’ ’cause so far what you’ve said about how things work in the church has been rather disconnected from what the church actually presents to its members as of … well … at least last GC. We’re not as out of touch as you suggest.
Seth:
I view the change in b.c. ‘doctrine’ as a value clash.
At the top, there were stmnts such as the (in)famous one by J.F.S. as saying (accurate or not) that he (as prophet) ‘only had sex with his wife when he wanted (to start) a [pregnancy] baby….
the words in Mormon Doctrine, DOM’s letter, others, conveyed the message that ‘God wants Mormons to have as many children as possible; (valiant) spirits in Heaven waiting to be born into righteous/LDS families’. It was unmistakable.
Then, along came technology in the form of pills; then, along came STD awareness, that suggests that condoms are useful for health reasons… Outcome: the church backs down, hedges its sayings/doctrines.
Tho the timing wasn’t as close-obvious, it appears kinda like the Blacks/Priesthood thingee, doesn’t it?
I never really bought the idea that the Church gave the blacks the Priesthood due to PR pressure. Just like I don’t buy that they ditched polygamy over statehood.
On both issues, they actually held out long past the PR pressure. If the Church was simply caving to federal pressure on polygamy, it would have done it decades earlier than it did. The persecution over the issue was so intense that it makes a suggestion that they dropped it just for statehood a bit implausible.
As for blacks, the wave of public sentiment had already peaked on the issue some time earlier. The Church held out on the issue too long for me to believe it was a PR stunt.
But you’re welcome to your opinion.