When Chapel Mormons Attack

[_3sheets2thewind]

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.

Except you have never shown where the Church proclaims that "published' by the Church establishes doctrine, your own philosophy mingle with the Church teachings does not cut it. Where does the LDS Church proclaim "published" by the Church establishes what is Doctrine?


As to Skaggs article, like many "TBMs" she spend a good amount of her article being a hypocrite, she spend almost have the article railing against internet/liberal Mormons.

She would have been better off just acknowledging that when Christ taught "A house divided can not stand" (why in the world she made the choice to quote Lincoln instead of Christ) and kept the article with simply stating that yes, there are different opinions among LDS Persons, and we should all do our best to get along and not judge each other. Instead, she decided to take the typical TBM stance of self martrydom, ridicule, and hypocrisy. Did anyone else notice her blog "wellbehavedmormon", that about takes the cake for self-righteousness.

Worst of all, DCP, has know drawn his martrydom card and is waiting for another stamp in it, for some hell bent reason DCP seems to think, that Skaggs was referring to MI cronies as "internet" more educated Mormons...pride issues there DCP? It is quite obvious the Skaggs was not referring to MI cronies as "more educated".

[_Willy Law]

I am wondering how others feel about her position.



--Consiglieri

I believe that she is tired of being painted as an ignoramus by Dr. Peterson and other internet Mormons who constantly contend that the church does not teach things that we all know the church teaches. We were all (or almost all) chapel Mormons at one time we all know what is taught in the average ward. When chapel Mormons see the liberal spin apologist place on those teachings and the denial that those teachings are taught in church, chapel Mormons, like this author, feel slighted and marginalized.
Funny how apologists on this board slam critics for their portrayal of chapel Mormons when, according to this author, it is the apologists/internet Mormons that hurt the chapel Mormons the most.

[_bcspace]

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.

It does in your case especially.

[Guest]

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

I was not limiting our differences to appearance, in fact they are the least of that which distinguishes us from each other. Maybe instead of talking about perfection we should be talking about eternal progression. But if we do we have to include God in the discussion. Is God perfect or is he progressing or both? Does our concept of of a perfect God include emotions? I think there is a lot of difficulty in the LDS concept of becoming God's and all those pesky omni attributes and eternal concepts. We really do not understand our own theology. Wouldn't it be nice if we actually belonged to a Church whose leaders engaged in theological discussion or had a leader who could simply ask God what the hell was going on?

One can wish.

[_Fence Sitter]

It does in your case especially.

Today is not good for you especially.

[_Willy Law]

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

My days of trying to force my beliefs and ideas into a little box created by the church are over. Knock yourself out.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

You need to change BC. Your hard ass attitude is going to end you up in hell. I promise.

[_Runtu]

My days of trying to force my beliefs and ideas into a little box created by the church are over. Knock yourself out.

It is wonderful not to have to do that anymore, isn't it?

[_Willy Law]

My days of trying to force my beliefs and ideas into a little box created by the church are over. Knock yourself out.

It is wonderful not to have to do that anymore, isn't it?

[_consiglieri]

I was not limiting our differences to appearance, in fact they are the least of that which distinguishes us from each other. Maybe instead of talking about perfection we should be talking about eternal progression. But if we do we have to include God in the discussion. Is God perfect or is he progressing or both? Does our concept of of a perfect God include emotions? I think there is a lot of difficulty in the LDS concept of becoming God's and all those pesky omni attributes and eternal concepts. We really do not understand our own theology. Wouldn't it be nice if we actually belonged to a Church whose leaders engaged in theological discussion or had a leader who could simply ask God what the hell was going on?

One can wish.

And I will wish right along with you.

It is a strange fact, but true, that Mormonism talks at length about an apostasy from the true understanding of God, some even lacing it with reference to the official adoption of Greek philosophy into the early Christian Church, but nevertheless blithely (and blindly?) adhere to such Greek philosophical concepts as God's omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

Mormonism is, I think, much more interesting and true to itself when it discards these three Greek words and discusses God based on restorationist teachings. (While simultaneously recognizing there are things about God we are not likely going to understand anytime soon.)

God is not "perfect" in some universal way. He is still progressing (as taught by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young though contradicted by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie).

We are similar to God; not perfect but still progressing. (But this very similarity means we can learn a lot about God by looking within.)

We are all on the same endless path.

God is merely further along and beckons to us from just beyond the next bend.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri