MADness - banned - folk versus orthodox Mormon

[_Ray A]

There seem to be a lot of people who get banned over there who use this board.

Most of them came here because they were banned from MAD, not so much because they use this board. There are still some here who have posting privileges there.

I wonder, when I was a little kid I often came across a snake in the grass. I never wanted to hurt it but it was fun to first just examine it, and then, once it got angry antagonize it a bit before leaving it be. Is my analogy to a snake proper and fitting of the people who control that board?

Snake is very proper and fitting.

For the record, I wasn't initially banned. I was censored, and then told them where they could stick their board.

[_beastie]

Quick question before I respond to specific posts: I've been accused of lying about being banned from viewing the MAD thread. I could have sworn that Juliann was one of the posters who popped up to label me a liar. Now her post is gone, unless I'm overlooking it.

Has anyone else been following the thread closely enough to verify my memory?

[_ttribe]

Quick question before I respond to specific posts: I've been accused of lying about being banned from viewing the MAD thread. I could have sworn that Juliann was one of the posters who popped up to label me a liar. Now her post is gone, unless I'm overlooking it.

Has anyone else been following the thread closely enough to verify my memory?

I've not seen Juliann in that part of the conversation at all.

[_beastie]

Thanks, ttribe. I guess my memory played a trick on me. I was pretty tired last night.

[_beastie]

Here is how I see it. And I think I have a fairly balanced view of things. I grew up LDS, went to seminary, was taught that we would go back to Jackson County, that the second coming might be in my lifetime, that there would be a visit by Christ at Adam-ondi Ahman. There are many core teachings and yes even doctrines that are in the scriptures have been written about talked about and preached about by LDS leaders and writers that members really do believe to some extend or another. One really wonders what Scott Lloyd and his ilk mean by folk doctrine.


Then there is a time that I have been somewhat of an arrogant seemingly know it all TBM that dabbled in apologtics. I aspired to be among the scholarly. At one point I even seriously considered going back to school to get a theological degree or some sort of degree in religious studies so I could have more knowledge and credibility. I thought I knew more then most members. Well I probably did due to my time and effort is studying things LDS. But over time the tact of the apologist, things just like Lloyd suggests, things like dismissing so much that leaders say and have taught as opinion only, the on going attempt to back peddle from techings that seem a core part of the LDS Church just did not sit will with me. Then there was for me the realization that there really are some seemingly irreconcilable problems, well this had led me to where I am today.

So now I participate in the LDS Church in a different way and I see such variety of people. Some believe more of what may now, for whatever reason, and maybe for this discussion only, be termed folk doctrine. Some may believe less. Some may be more like me but we never know because we never or rarely discuss it though there a a few persons I know like me that I have talked to in my real life.

So what does this all mean? The MAD folks are a cadre of a very few who think more highly of themselves than anyone else does. Most active members by far do not post on such message boards, have little interest in FARMS or the debates between defenders and critics. Most stick to to the lesson manuals, may read scriptures and have FHE and may pick up a fairly benign book or two about the Church here and there and are busy with callings, family and work. Most would be quite fine with Meldrum's view or others may be more interested in a LGT view. Faithful believing LDS run the gammet on some of these things. But they are the ones who run the Church. But there are lots of comments about lots of things. Just a while back in priesthood a discussion of heavenly mother came up. One of the smartest people I know, both in his professoin and in Church doctrine and study chimed in and said that we do not talk about a heavenly mother in detail because we all have different heavenly mothers. IN other words God has many wives and by implication so will males who are exalted. Is this folk doctrine? Is this man not as orthodox as Lloyd think he is? Would a GA view this man like Lloyd might? I do not think so. And let me tell you, there is no question that on a intelligence level this man would make Lloyd look like a midget. The man is just a brilliant scientist.

I have no doubt that most GAs would not be happy nor agree with Lloyd's ridiculous and arrogant position. Think about Elder Ballard's comments over the past few years as well as other GAs about how we should act when engaging and dialoguing about our faith with those who disagree. Think about his comments about believers getting out in the various ways one can on the internet and promoting a positive message about the Church. Most members are what Lloyd disdainfully refers to as Folk Mormons or whatever he called it. They make up more of the Church than Lloyd's cadre and others on MAD. They are the minority, the ones that want to cherry pick from what the leaders say. They do not think the GAs are serious when the GAs say "Follow the brethren" as well as noting that what leaders say in conference should be studied along with the standard works. Do you honestly think that the GAs are going to alienate the bulk of the active members be agreeing with such a stupid and faulty premise as Lloyd's really is? As has been noted, I think many of the GAs could fall into Lloyd's folk Mormon classification.

Lloyd and those that agree with him are in their own little delusional and arrogant world.

Jason,

I really appreciate your insight, particularly since you’ve always remained active. As I said, it’s been many years since I was active in church, so I thought it was possible things had changed, but you fairly summed up how I viewed the church during my active days.

Part of what is ironic about all this is that MADdites often insist that the LDS church has very few real “doctrines”, and outside of those very few doctrines, has no problem with members believing whatever they want. Yet their attitude towards those whom they condescendingly think of as “folk Mormons” betrays them. Apparently “folk Mormon” believe the WRONG things, even when they agree on the basic points of doctrine.

I can’t think of any “real-life” Mormon I’ve had problems or issues with since leaving the church. It’s the internet defenders of the faith who leave a bad taste in my mouth.

[_beastie]

I have to say I think Scratch is right on about this one. How about that!

Now I have seen it all. ;)

[_Trevor]

From the LDS press release Approaching Mormon Doctrine:

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole 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. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

Note the distinction between core doctrines and other doctrines. It seems to me some of these "other doctrines" are the kind that might be called "folk doctrine" by some, while other "folk doctrine" is of the passee and embarrassing kind, like those based on racist statements and policies of the past.

[_beastie]

I am 50 years of age. I spent precisely the first 1/2 of my life in what was increasingly becoming LDS Inc and less Mormonism. The last 1/2 of my life I have been free of the yoke, and an observer in a community that is more than 50% LDS.

I am fortunate not to have darkened the door of an LDS chapel in more than 20 years, except on perhaps the occasion of a funeral.

Hearkening back to the first 1/2 of my life, I remember a subdivision among the Chapel Mormons. There were people that exuded genuine kindness and consideration for others. They tended to be older than younger, more female than male. They rarely uttered a word about eternal progression or the hereafter, except perhaps to say they welcomed the time when they could once again see family members that had already died, and perhaps see God and Jesus. These people did not talk in terms of three kingdoms of heaven or exhaltation or anything of that ilk. Their temple sealings were of value to give them the opportunity to see again those family members who had died.

Then there were the people that were the Stake leaders, the Ward leaders, and even teachers of classes at Priesthood, Sunday School, etc. They spoke of temptation, the devil, the atonement, the pre-existence, the 2nd Coming, the millennial reign, the judgment, the resurrection of bodies made whole, spirits of the dead having a 2nd chance due to baptisms for the dead--but it being harder not being in the flesh (by the way, which seemed odd to me), one's calling and election made sure, etc. They begrudged home teaching, and did not exude any genuine kindness or care for others. It was their own exhaltation that was in their headlights.

Now I suppose some of this latter group would over time become part of the former group. I don't know. In my observations, I did not see it. Those that were caught up in achieving their own exhaltation became, in my observation, more entrenched with time in that mode. And many that were in the kindness group had not, I would find out, been active when they were younger. So for me, I did not see much progression of those in the seeking exhaltation group migrating into the kindness group.

Funny too, Jason, that you mention Ballard for the preaching on how LDS ought to act when dealing with those not of the 'faith'. In that first 1/2 of my life, I had occasion to meet 10-12 GAs. Some did seem truly caring for others, but Ballard was among those GAs I met the most singularly, strikingly arrogant and indifferent. (Oaks on the other hand was one whom I saw, pre-GA days, exhibit true kindness.)

Thanks for your insight as well, Nimrod. I’m not sure what you’ve observed is at odds with what Jason summarized.

I think that human nature is spread over a continuum in terms of both naked ambition and empathy and concern for others. I think that is true in the LDS church as it is in any organization. Of course, there are LDS teachings that could encourage the development of negative ambition – the idea of being chosen, and being gods in embryo, and having the only true priesthood, etc. At the same time, there are LDS teachings that could counter-act those negative ideas.

I did know some very arrogant and cold LDS individuals. As you say, they tended to be ambitious men, men who viewed callings within the LDS church as a sort of competition, who viewed certain callings as beneath them. One of the coldest, and, in my opinion, cruelest leaders I ever had the displeasure of meeting was Robert Hales. He was in charge of my mission, and verbally abused us in a conference due to his displeasure over our poor baptismal rate. (this was France, but that was no excuse) I imagine he puts on quite a show in his talks, too. Those kind of folks know how to play the game.

I think it tends to be true that ambitious people tend to engage in the sort of behaviors that lead to their advancement in whatever organization they value. Those behaviors may not be as attractive outside the service of ambition.

But I also knew many very warm and generous Mormons, as you observed.

[_Ray A]

Note the distinction between core doctrines and other doctrines. It seems to me some of these "other doctrines" are the kind that might be called "folk doctrine" by some, while other "folk doctrine" is of the passee and embarrassing kind, like those based on racist statements and policies of the past.

A question I wanted to ask on MAD, but for some reason I can't log in*; why do they call the doctrine that blacks were less valiant in pre-existence a "folk doctrine" when it was an official statement by the First Presidency in 1949, who called it a doctrine?






*Excuse my sarcasm

[_Trevor]

A question I wanted to ask on MAD, but for some reason I can't log in*; why do they call the doctrine that blacks were less valiant in pre-existence a "folk doctrine" when it was an official statement by the First Presidency in 1949, who called it a doctrine?

Yes. How did it go from being doctrine to not being doctrine? I am glad it is not, but what exactly was the mechanism? Was it the 1978 revelation? What was it?