When Chapel Mormons Attack

[_Willy Law]

So who should change in order that we become one? The only standard for that is official LDS doctrine. Therefore, for example, the one who accepts gay marriage has to change by definition.

Spoken like the prideful, rebellious, internet Mormon that you are.

[_consiglieri]

So who should change in order that we become one?

I reject out of hand the idea that we must all think and believe alike in order to "become one."

[_consiglieri]

Having now read the article, it sounds like Sister Skaggs agrees with me about differences existing within the membership of Mormonism and still seeking to be one regardless of the differences, and while still acknowledging the differences.

What she seems to be against is the labels used to distinguish one kind of Mormon from another kind of Mormon, and that this divides Mormons and keeps them from being "one."

I imagine there is some merit in what she is saying, but it does seem odd to recognize and even laud the differences among all Mormons, but also say that labeling these differences into categories is somehow detrimental.

In other words, I am not sure that simply applying labels to categories she already recognizes somehow makes the matter worse, much less how it makes the Church so that it cannot stand.

I could be wrong, though. I am wondering how others feel about her position.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Fence Sitter]

I reject out of hand the idea that we must all think and believe alike in order to "become one."

I have always wondered why human perfection would be desirable, because our differences are what distinguish. The Church is way too Orwellian in my opinion.

[_consiglieri]

I have always wondered why human perfection would be desirable, because our differences are what distinguish. The Church is way too Orwellian in my opinion.

I think it may have something to do with the unstated assumption that perfection can be only one thing, and that as we approach perfection, we must all of necessity become more and more similar until we are indistinguishable from each other.

Joseph Smith may have played into this idea when he described Jesus and Heavenly Father in a later First Vision account as being identical in appearance.

But appearance is the least important consideration in determining how we feel, think and believe.

Other revelations from Joseph Smith include the idea of truth being independent in that sphere in which it resides, which indicates to me relativity and even perhaps contradiction, between truths of different spheres.

I think Mormons would lose some of its Orwellian aspects if it focused more on relative truth and perfection, as well as growing in light and knowledge (kind of like, um, I don't know, the temple) than on conformity of belief and action.

I also think Mormonism would be served by getting back to its roots of freedom of choice instead of simply describing free agency as the freedom to do what you are told.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_bcspace]

So who should change in order that we become one? The only standard for that is official LDS doctrine. Therefore, for example, the one who accepts gay marriage has to change by definition.

Yes official doctrine being found only one the scriptures I.e. four standard works, the two official declarations, and the one proclamation about the family.

Incorrect. Official doctrine only resides there and you cannot tell what it is until it is established and published by the Church:

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

So who should change in order that we become one? The only standard for that is official LDS doctrine. Therefore, for example, the one who accepts gay marriage has to change by definition.

Spoken like the prideful, rebellious, internet Mormon that you are.

So what's your answer to the question that fits with LDS doctrine?

[_bcspace]

I reject out of hand the idea that we must all think and believe alike in order to "become one."

I have always wondered why human perfection would be desirable, because our differences are what distinguish. The Church is way too Orwellian in my opinion.

The bounds set by official doctrine are relatively minor compared to what one can do and believe within them. The problem is when some bounds become the subject and object of one's life; it is then that one has, in Orwellian fashion, cut themselves down to shape of their own cookie-cutter.

[_Fence Sitter]

The bounds set by official doctrine are relatively minor compared to what one can do and believe within them. The problem is when some bounds become the subject and object of one's life; it is then that one has, in Orwellian fashion, cut themselves down to shape of their own cookie-cutter.

Doesn't seem to be the case.

[_subgenius]

I have always wondered why human perfection would be desirable, because our differences are what distinguish.

since when is "different" synonymous with imperfect?
and do you seriously "wonder" about that desire? have you not a single aspiration?....oh, wait....you do wonder

[_Fence Sitter]

since when is "different" synonymous with imperfect?
and do you seriously "wonder" about that desire? have you not a single aspiration?....oh, wait....you do wonder

Let see if this can proceed with out ad hominem, I am game if you are.

Sub,

Can you point to something that is perfect and then illustrate how it can be different and retain its perfection?

Serious question.