Further Light and Knowledge

FLAK Statistics, a graph of posts per day.
NEW! Archive of The View from the Foyer.
It is currently Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:59 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Where you raised/taught things that you interpreted as doctrine but are not officially canonized?
Yes 92%  92%  [ 44 ]
No 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
I'm not sure 6%  6%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 48
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:44 am 
Election Made Sure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:53 am
Posts: 1839
I participate in several other forums completely unrelated to Mormonism (contrary to popular belief, my life does not revolved around the church and I really do have better ways to spend my time than to get my Anti-Mormon on. But I digress.). One of these forums has a weekly poll where members submit poll questions and options to use as talking points for discussion. I actually find that I like the format because A) I like to see where my own thoughts are in relation to the general populous and B) I like the discussions that generally occur as a result. So, with explanation, with the request that if you'd like to submit a poll please PM it to me, I'd like to start doing the same.

Uncanonized doctrine

I think we've all heard this before. Tolworthy made me thing about this a bit more than I have in recent years with this comment on the Boyd K Packer thread:


tolworthy wrote:
jbsaxman wrote:
I hope he dies before for the simple reason that I could rub it in the Mo's faces by saying "Oh, looks he did enough damage as just the GA and God realized having him as the leader would be a PR disaster."


Good point. I take it you refer to the canonized notes to Official Declaration 1. Plenty of prophets (all of them?) do dubious things and are then called home. It got me thinking...
Wilford Woodruff in Official Declaration 1 wrote:
The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place


After reading your post I got thinking about the "removed from my place" that Woodruff speaks of. The context sounds like dying, but in the Bible "remove from a place" nearly always refers to geographic location. The D&C uses the words in the same way. Which is interesting because the intended "place" for Mormon leaders is Jackson County, as stated repeatedly in LDS scripture:

D&C 84 wrote:
1 A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high.
2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.
5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.


I find this interesting because the Utah LDS church has been so apostate for so long (apostasy literally means moving apart) that Packer and company no longer even pay lip service to the original teachings. Removing from their place - giving up the central concept of Zion - is only one element. We are all aware of Packer's attitude to Jesus' teachings on love (Jesus' teachings were mocked by Monson in the latest GC). We recently discussed how Packer has abandoned the "Second Coming soon" message. So that is both parts of the church's name shot down. We know Packer's attitude to education and D&C121 (persuasion, not authority) and everything else that ever inspired hope in the church. I just marvel at how far the church has come that Packer no longer seems out of place.

[/rambling tangent]



When I say "uncanonized doctrine", what I am really referring to are the little things that we were taught, maybe by our parents, that may not be recognized by the church but we accept them as gospel. The concept that God wouldn't let a man reach the office if president of the church unless he had a purpose or a prophet is only in that role until his work is done and he is 'called home'.

I think there are a lot of things like this. Another example comes to mind that having a child born with a mental or physical handicap is a blessing because God trusts the parent to take special care of his special spirit.

I find this fascinating because it's clear that these sorts of thoughts and ideas are not only present in the general body of the church, but the lack of official response from the big 15 is almost understood to be acceptance and agreement. Yet, the apologists when confronted by these dismiss them, effectively stating that because there is no official response from up top, there's no way to could be doctrine.d

So this week's poll question: Where you raised/taught things (if a convert) that were interpreted as unofficial canon or doctrine?

Please give some examples.

_________________
"To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope." - Thomas Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:43 pm 
Election Made Sure
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 856
Location: California
I answered that I'm not sure. Especially after reading Tolworthy's (insightful) comment, I'm not sure what to categorize as doctrine anymore. The recent stuff, from Hinckley onward, seems so watered down and contradictory to what I grew up on that it doesn't even feel like it's part of the same religion.

Does anyone else remember those "Answers to Gospel Questions" books by Joseph Fielding Smith? The forward to the book even said it was good enough for doctrine.
Quote:
Acknowledgment

Deseret Book Company wishes to express appreciation and gratitude to President Joseph Fielding Smith of the Council of the Twelve and The Improvement Era for permission to publish the material which has appeared in the magazine as a monthly series under the title "Your Question." During the past several years this feature has been so popular, that Deseret Book Company sought permission from President Smith and The Improvement Era to collect the material in book form. Answers to Gospel Questions is presented to Church readers with the sincere hope that it will provide answers to perplexing questions and increase knowledge of Church doctrine.

Deseret Book Company also desires to acknowledge its indebtedness to Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr. for his painstaking care and expert assistance in the planning and publication of this book.

FOREWORD

Since May 1953, President Joseph Fielding Smith has been answering the questions of readers, in a monthly page in The Improvement Era, under the continuing title--"Your Question."

In his mail comes a multiplicity of questions of all kinds, pertaining to scripture, to doctrine, to history, and to the interpretation of many points and problems.

He cannot, of course, answer all the questions that come. The mail is too voluminous, the questions too repetitious, and time and strength too limited, with all the other official obligations.

But with all these limitations, President Smith has given an earnest and eminently able service in selecting from among the many, those questions which to him seem most timely, or most significant, or most frequently repeated.

In using the pages of The Improvement Era for this purpose, President Smith has carried forward a tradition passed on from his father, President Joseph F. Smith, who, in 1897, was one of the Era's first editors, and whose doctrinal and other writings appeared on the "Editor's Table" and elsewhere in the Era, beginning some sixty years ago. Some of those Era writings of President Joseph F. Smith found their way into the much read and much quoted book, Gospel Doctrine, which has proved so significantly useful to the Church.

And now, in this generation, we are grateful for President Joseph Fielding Smith's willingness to bring his broad background of scripture, and doctrine, and history to the Church, through the pages of The Improvement Era, and through the pages of this book, which carries the title Answers to Gospel Questions.

The Deseret Book Company has requested the privilege of collecting and publishing these writings, and The Improvement Era, with President Smith's concurrence, has granted that privilege, to perpetuate a work that will be widely read and widely referred to, in answering "Your Question."


I still hold the church to the things I read in those volumes and other authoritative sources from decades ago, no matter what newer leaders say. The newer ones don't have any confidence. They don't claim to speak for God much anymore; they just let the membership think they do when it's convenient.

It was so much more satisfying to read older church writings when I was a member. I told myself that's because that's where the deeper doctrine was. Why would the earlier prophets get more insight and revelations? Maybe it was because the Second Coming was so soon, and eventually we'd get more than enough revelation to guide us through those times. Kind of a lull before the storm situation, maybe, where the real task is to just focus on trying to be as perfect as possible.

Or maybe the church didn't deserve revelation yet. You don't overwhelm a child with more rules and requirements when they're still not doing well with the last set.

The lack of revelation from hinckley made me desperate for my patriarchal blessing. I was so disappointed. xD Apparently they don't give awesome patriarchal blessings like they used to, either.

Monson would never answer doctrinal questions in a church magazine, would he?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:01 pm 
Election Made Sure
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 856
Location: California
Ugh, I rambled away from the topic.

I thought I'd be involved in creating worlds after this mortal life, if i was good enough. Doctrine doesn't specifically include females in on that as far as I remember.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:12 pm 
Election Made Sure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:53 am
Posts: 1839
Well, this week's poll has been a bust in terms of generating discussion. Maybe next week will be better.

_________________
"To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope." - Thomas Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:35 am 
Election Made Sure

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 4:31 pm
Posts: 2085
wait....we were supposed to be discussing this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:29 pm 
Election Made Sure

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:32 pm
Posts: 591
AHHHHH! I've been waiting to hear the "special spirit" one. A child born with problems is supposedly a special spirit for the family. If the kid could talk, do you think he'd consider himself special? Is the whole family special because of this situation? Is heaven going to be a better place because they'll be sharing it with a special person? Quite frankly I think it's atrocious the load of shit that disabled people have to go through in this life, and even more hideous the way some of them are treated in school settings. I wouldn't call it special. I'd call it shitty. Having watched a dear friend raise a son with CP, seeing him fall down flights of stairs at school, listening to him tell me about the horrible pain he has in his joints, my heart breaks for him. Very few people in his life have treated him like he's special.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:52 pm 
Election Made Sure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:53 am
Posts: 1839
pollypinks wrote:
AHHHHH! I've been waiting to hear the "special spirit" one. A child born with problems is supposedly a special spirit for the family. If the kid could talk, do you think he'd consider himself special? Is the whole family special because of this situation? Is heaven going to be a better place because they'll be sharing it with a special person? Quite frankly I think it's atrocious the load of shit that disabled people have to go through in this life, and even more hideous the way some of them are treated in school settings. I wouldn't call it special. I'd call it shitty. Having watched a dear friend raise a son with CP, seeing him fall down flights of stairs at school, listening to him tell me about the horrible pain he has in his joints, my heart breaks for him. Very few people in his life have treated him like he's special.



Back when I was a scoutmaster I had a boy in the troop with severe CP. Broke my heart to see him. He couldn't do anything unassisted. When we went to scout camp, we had to ensure that we received a camp spot near power so his wheel chair could be charged overnight. His dad had to be there to help him with this day to day living.

But this kid was cool. Seriously, when you'd look at him and he'd look back at you, you could just tell that he was there. He couldn't speak, but you could carry on a conversation with the kid after learning how he communicates.

Anyways, I'll be damned if that kid didn't earn more merit badges than anyone in the troop. And no one went easy on him because he was disabled. It was cool to see him out there doing more than most of the other kids in the entire camp.

But I agree. This "special spirit" bullshit is just that. Bullshit. What kind of god would allow this and then try to tell them that he did it because they were special? Fuck that god.

_________________
"To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope." - Thomas Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:23 pm 
Election Made Sure

Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 218
jbsaxman wrote:
What kind of god would allow this and then try to tell them that he did it because they were special? Fuck that god.

That was on the tip of my tongue the other day after I'd hoisted my bike onto the train for a commute to work. A man looked at my bike and said he wished he could ride one too. He said he had MS, and I said, "oh, it's a balance thing, eh?"

He said, "Yes, but praise Jesus I can still walk."

That didn't make me feel like praising Jesus. So I told him of my friend with ALS who can't move a muscle except the ones that control his eyes. I hoped the mental imaged of my friend's complete helplessness would stop this train guy from preaching his religion to me. But instead, he asked for the first name of my friend so he could pray for him. The very next day, my friend almost died of a collapsed lung. I know this would have happened whether he was prayed for or not, and that death is what my friend stares at all day long. Why make Jesus responsible for it? In my believing days, I rather thought that was simply too much to ask.

All this having an explanation for the stupidest stuff just becomes too silly and exhausting.

I have no idea why I shared this other than as an idolotrous mantra to the god of fucked up shit so I can purge the darkness from my heart.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:38 pm 
Election Made Sure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:36 pm
Posts: 239
jbsaxman wrote:
What kind of god would allow this and then try to tell them that he did it because they were special? Fuck that god.


+1000 (at least) I get so frustrated sometimes because so many people make asinine comments about how "blessed" they are because of their trials or some other such shit. They just regurgitate what they have heard so many others say before them and to them. What happened to thought? And using your brain?!!

_________________
"We shouldn't be mad at Chef for leaving us, We should be mad at that fruity little club for scrambling his brains"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:14 am 
Election Made Sure

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:32 pm
Posts: 591
Wasn't it Ezra Taft Benson who declared every mormon should be a republican? Isn't stating political rantings leading the flock astray?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:32 am 
Election Made Sure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:06 am
Posts: 773
Location: UK
I was taught that Satan had dominion over the water. My mom later told me that was NEVER taught and isn't doctrine (bullshit). Fucked me up for swimming in the sea when I was younger. Now I don't swim in the sea because of the jellyfish. Also, there's a lot of uncanonized doctrine about a woman's worthiness being associated with motherhood and the amount of children she bears.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:40 am 
Election Made Sure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:54 pm
Posts: 6203
leftofcentre wrote:
I was taught that Satan had dominion over the water. My mom later told me that was NEVER taught and isn't doctrine (bullshit). Fucked me up for swimming in the sea when I was younger. Now I don't swim in the sea because of the jellyfish. Also, there's a lot of uncanonized doctrine about a woman's worthiness being associated with motherhood and the amount of children she bears.



Isn't that bit about Satan and the waters in the D&C? I think it is. So it's doctrine. Give me a break. Never taught. Bullshit indeed.

_________________
The apple cannot be stuck back on the Tree of Knowledge; once we begin to see, we are doomed and challenged to seek the strength to see more, not less. ~ Arthur Miller


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:59 am 
Election Made Sure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:06 am
Posts: 773
Location: UK
belaja wrote:
leftofcentre wrote:
I was taught that Satan had dominion over the water. My mom later told me that was NEVER taught and isn't doctrine (bullshit). Fucked me up for swimming in the sea when I was younger. Now I don't swim in the sea because of the jellyfish. Also, there's a lot of uncanonized doctrine about a woman's worthiness being associated with motherhood and the amount of children she bears.



Isn't that bit about Satan and the waters in the D&C? I think it is. So it's doctrine. Give me a break. Never taught. Bullshit indeed.


Yeah, it probably is in the D&C. Shows you how much I read the damn books, eh?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:48 pm 
Election Made Sure
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 1:40 am
Posts: 982
Location: Location Location
I can't remember if it was Seminary or somewhere else we were taught it, but it's Section 61. And yes, I had to look it up. :)

D&C 61: 18-19: "...you shall forewarn your brethren concerning these waters, that they come not in journeying upon them, lest their faith fail and they are caught in snares; I, the Lord, have decreed, and the destroyer rideth upon the face thereof..."

And a little earlier in verse 6 it reads: "...he that is faithful among you shall not perish by the waters."

I guess it's just an out for Mormon Gawd's culpability for human suffering by way of drownings: anyone who drowns just didn't have enough faith!

_________________
Apostasy loves company.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:22 pm 
Election Made Sure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:06 am
Posts: 773
Location: UK
Thanks for that, you guys. Next time I'm visiting my parents and they decide to have a KJV, BoM, D&C and PoGP slam for FHE, I'll kick some asssssssss.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Powered by phpBB® © thefoyer.org, 2011