Should the church teach non-donctrinal stuff?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I was recently thinking about the issue of doctrine vs. opinion. As members of a church, the church has a right to shove their doctrine down your throat. You signed up for it, you sustain them as your spiritual leaders, you claim to believe their version of God and spiritual matters, you should sit and listen to the doctrine. So why does the church (I'll pick on the Mormon church here since I haven't experienced other churches) teach non-doctrine a.k.a.. opinion to their members? What's the point in teaching something that isn't doctrine?

Here's a n example: In Elder's quorum a few years ago we had a lesson on the Sabbath. The teacher taught us what are appropriate Sunday activities and what are not appropriate. This led to a big discussion over who gets to decide what is appropriate and inappropriate, with one guy saying "If I want to take my family water skiiing on Sunday afternoon, that's my business." and so on, you get the picture. A few weeks later we had a lesson on the proper role of men and women in the family, with the manual describing the cookie cutter scenerio of a man as provider and the woman as nurturer, which of course led to raised hands about the single parents, divorced, widowed, working mothers/stay at home dads, etc.

So why does the church bother preaching this stuff to the members. You won't lose your temple recommend for taking the family to the beach on Sunday. You won't be excommunicated for letting your wife work. The bishop won't discipline you for watching football on Sunday. Everyone has a different opinion on this type stuff, and it isn't doctrine, so why does the church have lessons on it in the manuals? Why not stick to the scriptures, and Jesus's lessons, etc.?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I was recently thinking about the issue of doctrine vs. opinion. As members of a church, the church has a right to shove their doctrine down your throat. You signed up for it, you sustain them as your spiritual leaders, you claim to believe their version of God and spiritual matters, you should sit and listen to the doctrine. So why does the church (I'll pick on the Mormon church here since I haven't experienced other churches) teach non-doctrine a.k.a.. opinion to their members? What's the point in teaching something that isn't doctrine?

Here's a n example: In Elder's quorum a few years ago we had a lesson on the Sabbath. The teacher taught us what are appropriate Sunday activities and what are not appropriate. This led to a big discussion over who gets to decide what is appropriate and inappropriate, with one guy saying "If I want to take my family water skiiing on Sunday afternoon, that's my business." and so on, you get the picture. A few weeks later we had a lesson on the proper role of men and women in the family, with the manual describing the cookie cutter scenerio of a man as provider and the woman as nurturer, which of course led to raised hands about the single parents, divorced, widowed, working mothers/stay at home dads, etc.

So why does the church bother preaching this stuff to the members. You won't lose your temple recommend for taking the family to the beach on Sunday. You won't be excommunicated for letting your wife work. The bishop won't discipline you for watching football on Sunday. Everyone has a different opinion on this type stuff, and it isn't doctrine, so why does the church have lessons on it in the manuals? Why not stick to the scriptures, and Jesus's lessons, etc.?

I tend to agree with you in that we could use more doctrinal teaching and less "do this, don't do this." Teaching the principles should take precedence (and I add it largely does so in the Church issued manuals). But we have some imperfect teachers out there who want to be "commanded in all things," and that's somewhat of a lazy man's gospel if that is all people preach about.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

get a better server

[_truth dancer]

Hi SWSU.... :-)

You won't be excommunicated for letting your wife work.

What sort of sick relationship is it that a man has to "let" or "allow" his wife to work?

;-)

OK... back to your point! (smile)

~dancer~

[_bcspace]

I was recently thinking about the issue of doctrine vs. opinion. As members of a church, the church has a right to shove their doctrine down your throat. You signed up for it, you sustain them as your spiritual leaders, you claim to believe their version of God and spiritual matters, you should sit and listen to the doctrine.

On the other hand, you don't have to sit at all but can walk out of the door and never come back. Hardly qualifies as 'shoving doctrine' down ones throat.

So why does the church (I'll pick on the Mormon church here since I haven't experienced other churches) teach non-doctrine a.k.a.. opinion to their members? What's the point in teaching something that isn't doctrine?

It doesn't.

Here's a n example: In Elder's quorum a few years ago we had a lesson on the Sabbath. The teacher taught us what are appropriate Sunday activities and what are not appropriate. This led to a big discussion over who gets to decide what is appropriate and inappropriate, with one guy saying "If I want to take my family water skiiing on Sunday afternoon, that's my business." and so on, you get the picture. A few weeks later we had a lesson on the proper role of men and women in the family, with the manual describing the cookie cutter scenerio of a man as provider and the woman as nurturer, which of course led to raised hands about the single parents, divorced, widowed, working mothers/stay at home dads, etc.

Here is an example of individuals taking a doctrine and trying to apply it to their own lives. The scriptures don't speak of camping, boating, fishing on Sundays, or women having careers. But they do teach the correct principles and now we govern oursleves.

So why does the church bother preaching this stuff to the members. You won't lose your temple recommend for taking the family to the beach on Sunday. You won't be excommunicated for letting your wife work. The bishop won't discipline you for watching football on Sunday.

Everyone has a different opinion on this type stuff, and it isn't doctrine, so why does the church have lessons on it in the manuals? Why not stick to the scriptures, and Jesus's lessons, etc.?

Ah! Your first phrase had the Church teaching this stuff. Now you admit to members having opinions. Well, what's wrong with that? Why not judge the judgements of others to see if it fits your understanding of the doctrine?

[_Zoidberg]

The truth is, most of the stuff you hear at church is not doctrine. Most of what you hear in sacrament meetings (other than prayers, blessings etc.) is individual members' opinion. In Sunday school, it's the watered down "milk" with some of the teacher's opinion thrown in, but that's where you hear the most relevant stuff, usually. YW is all about how to avoid becoming a licked cupcake and excel at crocheting, YM is largely about how you shouldn't lick cupcakes that aren't yours with slightly more doctrinal stuff thrown in. In Relief Society and priesthood the teachings (but mostly "faithful" biographies) of various dead prophets are discussed, a lot of which were also opinions.

It doesn't help that no one knows what "doctrine" really means.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Hi SWSU.... :-)

You won't be excommunicated for letting your wife work.

What sort of sick relationship is it that a man has to "let" or "allow" his wife to work?

;-)

OK... back to your point! (smile)

~dancer~

I agree.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Everyone has a different opinion on this type stuff, and it isn't doctrine, so why does the church have lessons on it in the manuals? Why not stick to the scriptures, and Jesus's lessons, etc.?

Ah! Your first phrase had the Church teaching this stuff. Now you admit to members having opinions. Well, what's wrong with that? Why not judge the judgements of others to see if it fits your understanding of the doctrine?

[/quote]

Well that's the point. The church teaches what amounts to opinion out of manuals that many people take as doctrine and run with it. This is what leads to all the pseudo-doctrine that defines the church even more than the small amount of real doctrine. My wife says that flip-flops are banned in church. Where do you think she got this from? I have no idea, but these types of "rules" permeate Mormon culture. I'm not sure why the pseudo doctrines take off the way they do.

[Guest]

Everyone has a different opinion on this type stuff, and it isn't doctrine, so why does the church have lessons on it in the manuals? Why not stick to the scriptures, and Jesus's lessons, etc.?

Ah! Your first phrase had the Church teaching this stuff. Now you admit to members having opinions. Well, what's wrong with that? Why not judge the judgements of others to see if it fits your understanding of the doctrine?

Well that's the point. The church teaches what amounts to opinion out of manuals that many people take as doctrine and run with it. This is what leads to all the pseudo-doctrine that defines the church even more than the small amount of real doctrine. My wife says that flip-flops are banned in church. Where do you think she got this from? I have no idea, but these types of "rules" permeate Mormon culture. I'm not sure why the pseudo doctrines take off the way they do.

Personally I don't think flip flops are a good footwear choice for Church, but this is a good example of the extra rules.

[_Zoidberg]

Personally I don't think flip flops are a good footwear choice for Church, but this is a good example of the extra rules.

That reminds me, once our church choir group was having a hard time with a song, and guess what some idiot attributed it to? The fact that I wore a leather choker to practice (and it was a weekday). It scared away the spirit, you see.

The spirit is so easily repealed by leather accessories, flip-flops, extra piercings and tattoos (but not boob jobs, apparently) that perhaps the only place on Earth you can find it is the Middle East.