Mercury wrote:Excellent post. It summarizes much of what I have been saying, that being the Mormon church has no real doctrine and beliefs. Instead they are a chimera that changes its form to whatever the public expects from a mainstream religion.
Mormonism reminds me of the kid in high school who no one likes that tries to pick up every fad because they don't have an identity of their own.
A bit like throwing darts at a moving target, I suppose. There's a danger in having a solid doctrinal statement...what happens when new knowledge shows a teaching is wrong? The process keeps the church safe, I guess.
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche
I think you make some valid points. It seems the church is in flux. There are many things that seemed to be taught as doctrine, things we seemed proud of as I grew up, but that are now relegated to quasi doctrine or opinion or speculation. Publically the Church seems to want to down play some of the more unique, or different teachings. But many are still in lesson manuals, talked about is SS, Relief Society or priesthood meetings and discussed by members. This then begs the question of whether it is time for the Church to make an official list or document of doctrine and belief. Certainly the Church had this in the early days with the 1835 D&C and the Articles of Faith, or what became the AoF. Yet it seems there is resistance to do this because then we are pinned down and perhaps changing doctrine will become more difficult. But yes, there is confusion among members somewhat as to what the LDS Church really teaches or believes. At times when I listen to conference, read the Ensign or read talks from the leaders in other sources I wonder if we believe anything really beyond the basics. Most of what one gets from such sources are topics about practice, how to live, obedience and so on. We are becoming overly focused on orthopraxy and little is said about doctrinal topics. One need only compare and Ensign of today to one from 25 years ago and the differences I think are stark.
Yes, the nature of "flux" in the church is both good and bad. The process allows for change to be made when necessary, but it also keeps many gray areas that keep anybody from really knowing what the doctrine is. I suppose you could say that allows for diversity in the church, but I think it also sets up many arguments between members, and ex-members, as you can find statements from current and past leaders supporting one's doctrinal belief that are strikingly contradictory.
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche
Some Schmo wrote:It's not an all or nothing proposition. One would be foolish to think that it was only his Mormonism that did him in, but they'd also be foolish to think it had nothing to do with it. For some, his LDS membership had to be an issue, and for others, I'm sure it's his perceived lack of authenticity.
Sorry folks, but people do not think of Mormonism as "just another religion." It's not. It's got it's own place in that special category of religions that are "weirder than most." Like Scientology and JW, Mormonism is stranger than your average mainstream religion.
If it's any consolation to Mormons, however, I think they're all screwy. The details are just window dressing to the central issue with all religions, which is that they all contain irrational beliefs and are completely fabricated.
I'll take another side to this for a minute...I think most Mormons are quite normal BECAUSE the doctrine is so wishy-washy. Even the prophet can say on TV "I don't know that we teach that" to a very left field doctrine of whether "God" was once a man, etc. This allows Mormons to fit into the mainstream by picking and choosing the doctrines and versions of history they want to believe; and if it is too far out there, simply ignore it. I think the church does this more than ever by emphasizing the three-fold mission of the church -- everything else is minimized. Sure, there are some weird health rules, and a few quirks about the temple process, but really, they live a pretty normal life besides that.
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche
Mercury wrote:Excellent post. It summarizes much of what I have been saying, that being the Mormon church has no real doctrine and beliefs. Instead they are a chimera that changes its form to whatever the public expects from a mainstream religion.
Mormonism reminds me of the kid in high school who no one likes that tries to pick up every fad because they don't have an identity of their own.
A bit like throwing darts at a moving target, I suppose. There's a danger in having a solid doctrinal statement...what happens when new knowledge shows a teaching is wrong? The process keeps the church safe, I guess.
Every statement from the Mormon church is a solid doctrinal statement. The problem is that all of these solid statements trip over themselves in a comedy of errors.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
"Romney's failed campaign revealed what many Americans really think about Mormons. It forced Latter-day Saints to acknowledge that they don't just belong to another American denomination."
and, "National news Web sites...asked Romney questions about where Jesus would touch down at his Second Coming and Republican candidate Mike Huckabee "innocently" wondered whether Mormons believe that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers."
With "modern revelation" as an admitted defense for the changing doctrines of the church, is it fair to say that even Mormons themselves don't know what they believe today?
For example, as the public media ask questions about Mormon doctrine, do they get answers like "I don't know that we teach that," when it is clearly written by many former LDS leaders, that confuse them even more? Clearly, some of the key teachings of the church are no longer taught (plural marriage as necessary for exhaltation), and even its own history is unknown by many chapel Mormons (how many know that Joseph had 33 wives -- some teenagers and some other men's wives)?
What I heard from my TBM friends is "Americans don't understand the truth about Mormonism. If they really knew how normal we are, they'd vote for Mitt."
Well, maybe for Mitt to be a credible candidate in 2012, the church leaders needs to educate their own to learn what they really believe. But then, that means they need to figure it out themselves first!
I think Americans are scared of Mormonism and I find that to be sort of sad because I bet if Mitt Romney wasn't a Mormon, he would be the Republican candidate. I'm disappointed that he isn't. I don't think the rest of the lot have a clue what to do with the economy. McCain admitted it wasn't his strong suit. If the Democrats get their way and try their version of socialized medicine we'll be in a real mess. The last thing we need is the Government to have anything to do with healthcare. Medicare is a disaster and our money is wasted everyday by the bureacracy.
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who cold not hear the music. ----Nietzche