Changing doctrine

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
Post Reply
User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Changing doctrine

Post by Emower » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:03 pm

So I just wrote up a big long post about a podcast that I just listened to. It was a faithful podcast called LDS perspectives. They had a BYU professor on talking about nailing down what Mormon doctrine is. We are all aware here of how difficult that is to do. I summarized it all for for you, documented the mental gymnastics and assumptions required to buy into it, and identified some untruths. Then I thought, whats the point? Its all just a steaming pile of horse $#%&.

How can people not recognize and understand that this church is led by a committee of your grandpas? If you want to still be involved, fine. But how you cant see that Jesus is not at the helm is soooo beyond me.

User avatar
RubinHighlander
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:20 am
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Changing doctrine

Post by RubinHighlander » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:16 pm

I totally agree with you. I also try to think back to my TBM days and remember the mental gymnastics I applied in order to keep the shelf from breaking, along with my sanity. It's so strange to see that me now, to think I was so easily duped. It's hard to swallow but also makes me grateful I'm out and cherish my freedom. I also try to keep a connection to the TBM me so that I can more easily empathize with my TBM friends and family and keep my comments and conversations in the realm of mutual respect. I have no desire to cause them cogdis, although sometimes I dabble in that realm at bit. It would be my wish to set them free as well, but there are various family situations that would be at risk and could cause more pain and suffering than they otherwise have just being plugged into the matrix. It's certainly a challenge to see them wallowing in all the stupidity of it, but we have to remember, we were there once too.
“Sir,' I said to the universe, 'I exist.' 'That,' said the universe, 'creates no sense of obligation in me whatsoever.”
--Douglas Adams

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzmYP3PbfXE

Korihor
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:37 am

Re: Changing doctrine

Post by Korihor » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:30 pm

My MIL was in town visiting us a for a few days and Monday evening we go into a lively discussion regarding religion. The end result of this discussion is I just need to not talk religion with my MIL in order to save the relationship. She know how opposed I am to many aspects of the church. I just need to accept that for now, she's content being a believer and doesn't want to know the controversies.

Regarding how someone can not recognize the flaws of the system - I dunno. One thing we discussed was polygamy. My MIL was abhorred that we are still a polygamous church and could not fathom the sealings going on this very day in the temple are polygamous doctrinally. She said it doesn't matter if it's polygamous or not, if it is then is just something she'll have to worry about in the next life but it doesn't matter now. If it's actually not polygamous (as she currently thinks) then it doesn't matter anyway.

Never underestimate the ability of a TBM to compartmentalize and dismiss the hard information. No matter how parched, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Reading can severely damage your ignorance.

Thoughtful
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:54 pm

Re: Changing doctrine

Post by Thoughtful » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:56 pm

Korihor wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:30 pm
My MIL was in town visiting us a for a few days and Monday evening we go into a lively discussion regarding religion. The end result of this discussion is I just need to not talk religion with my MIL in order to save the relationship. She know how opposed I am to many aspects of the church. I just need to accept that for now, she's content being a believer and doesn't want to know the controversies.

Regarding how someone can not recognize the flaws of the system - I dunno. One thing we discussed was polygamy. My MIL was abhorred that we are still a polygamous church and could not fathom the sealings going on this very day in the temple are polygamous doctrinally. She said it doesn't matter if it's polygamous or not, if it is then is just something she'll have to worry about in the next life but it doesn't matter now. If it's actually not polygamous (as she currently thinks) then it doesn't matter anyway.

Never underestimate the ability of a TBM to compartmentalize and dismiss the hard information. No matter how parched, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Very true. Although, I hate that it's a feeling of my integrity vs theirs.

I shared a polygamy story that is hard to not see Joseph as a cad, to someone who was finally willing to have a real discussion. They said, "I don't think that's true." I said it was, they said "I don't think so". Leaves me feeling like I'm being called a liar.

I sent them a link to the well documented story. They have seemed quiet and sad all day.

So I can feel like they think I'm a liar, or I can prove then wrong and Tumble a shelf that gives them self esteem and leadership opportunities and a sense of identity.

Kindofa sucky position to be in.

User avatar
BriansThoughtMirror
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:37 pm

Re: Changing doctrine

Post by BriansThoughtMirror » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:42 am

I can relate to feeling like people are calling you a liar, or maybe stupid, lazy, etc. No one has called me a liar, of course. It's more like, people dismiss your concerns out of hand, and then make it clear that they assume you simply must be mistaken. Oh, well. I pretty much don't discuss specific concerns with anybody these days.
Reflections From Brian's Brain
https://briansthoughtmirror.wordpress.com/

User avatar
StarbucksMom
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:14 am

Re: Changing doctrine

Post by StarbucksMom » Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:05 am

If the LDS church was true, we wouldn't need this huge, growing pile of apologetic BS.

Thoughtful, could you maybe share the link to the polygamy story you are talking about?

Thoughtful
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:54 pm

Re: Changing doctrine

Post by Thoughtful » Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:35 pm

StarbucksMom wrote:
Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:05 am
If the LDS church was true, we wouldn't need this huge, growing pile of apologetic BS.

Thoughtful, could you maybe share the link to the polygamy story you are talking about?

http://www.lostmormonism.com/wife-of-jo ... partridge/

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Changing doctrine

Post by moksha » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:20 pm

Korihor wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:30 pm
She said it doesn't matter if it's polygamous or not, if it is then is just something she'll have to worry about in the next life but it doesn't matter now. If it's actually not polygamous (as she currently thinks) then it doesn't matter anyway.
Swear there ain't no polygamy and pray there ain't no hell,
But we'll never know by living, only our dying will tell,
Only our dying will tell, yeah, only our dying will tell.
And when we die and when we're dead, dead and gone,
There'll be one more sister wife and a husband to carry on, to carry on.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
Give It Time
Posts: 1244
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:52 pm

Re: Changing doctrine

Post by Give It Time » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:35 pm

I haven't listened to the podcast. I have to admit I'm jaded. We had lots and lots of threads on NOM 1.0 about how difficult it is to determine doctrine. Things like

Polygamy isn't doctrine, because of Hinckley's disowning it, because they de-emphasize it, because it's icky.

Polygamy is doctrine, because of the temple and because of section 132.

Essay was published. Turns out it's doctrine.

Gender equality in the temporal sense is doctrine, because the church has been demphasizing gender roles and the family proc says men and women share equal responsibility.

Gender equality in the temporal sense is not doctrine, because of the temple, the priesthood, the patriarchy, the family proc says men and women share equal responsibility (work load), but the man has the priesthood and he presides (authority).

Kate Kelly is excommunicated and it turns out the church has a funny definition of equality.


Homosexuals will be accepted and their love will be incorporated into the plan of salvation, because of the Mormons and gays website, Elder Christofferson's brother, Salt Lake being the third gayest city in the nation.

Homosexuals will never be accepted and their love will never be incorporated into the plan of salvation, because of the scriptures in the Bible against homosexuality, statements by GAs over the years, mainstream Christianity and how the church wants to play in that big sandbox and the church was just born that way.

November 5th policy comes out and it looks like those who are out are out.

I've seen many discussions about what is doctrine and how do we determine doctrine. The church isn't changing. At least not for several generations. So, we all have doctrines that cause us anxiety and make our stomachs churn. These are the doctrines that are frequently debated. This is how I determine true doctrine: does it turn my stomach and keep me up at night? If so, it's doctrine.
At 70 years-old, my older self would tell my younger self to use the words, "f*ck off" much more frequently. --Helen Mirren

User avatar
StarbucksMom
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:14 am

Re: Changing doctrine

Post by StarbucksMom » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:08 am

Thoughtful wrote:
Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:35 pm
[quote=StarbucksMom post_id=20604 time=<a href="tel:1500570358">1500570358</a> user_id=178]
If the LDS church was true, we wouldn't need this huge, growing pile of apologetic BS.

Thoughtful, could you maybe share the link to the polygamy story you are talking about?

http://www.lostmormonism.com/wife-of-jo ... partridge/

Thank you. Off topic, sorry--At first I thought that maybe these were his foster daughters?? But no, those were the Lawrence sisters. I had heard about the Partridge sisters but didn't realize they lived w/ JS and Emma because their father died. Seriously, I never cease to be amazed at how this is all ok to TBMs who actually know this stuff. How can preying on 4 girls-whose parents died-while you're married-behind your wife's back...be ok?

User avatar
Red Ryder
Posts: 4144
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: Changing doctrine

Post by Red Ryder » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:44 am

Don't forget the fact that the Partridge sisters:

1. Didn't know each other were marrying JS.
2. Had already been married to JS when Emma "chose" them.
3. Second weddings were performed, to hide the first weddings from for Emma.
4. Emma received her endowment after the sham weddings.
5. Emma kicked them out of the house and they left after shaking hands with JS as their goodbye.
About this time Joseph introduced select men to the endowment ceremony. He taught that it was necessary for exaltation. Women would also be receiving the endowment and Joseph wanted his wife, Emma, to be the “Elect Lady”: the first women to receive the endowment. She would then disseminate it to the other women. The endowment requires a wife to be obedient to her husband. Because Emma was resisting plural marriage, Joseph would not let her participate in the endowment, thus risking her own exaltation as well as delaying ceremonial endowments for other women. Carrying this burden, Emma agreed to let Joseph marry additional wives; provided she could select them. Unaware of their marriage to Joseph months earlier, Emma selected her live-in helpers, Emily and Eliza. Emily recalls, “I do not know why she gave us to him, unless she thought we were where she could watch us better...” Emily continued, “To save the family trouble Brother Joseph thought it best to have another ceremony performed...[Emma] had her feelings, and so we thought there was no use in saying anything about it so long as she had chosen us herself...Accordingly...we were sealed to JS a second time, in Emma’s presence.” Within a week, Emma received her endowment.
“It always devolves to Pantaloons. Always.” ~ Fluffy

“I switched baristas” ~ Lady Gaga

“Those who do not move do not notice their chains.” ~Rosa Luxemburg

Thoughtful
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:54 pm

Re: Changing doctrine

Post by Thoughtful » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:59 pm

StarbucksMom wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:08 am
Thoughtful wrote:
Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:35 pm
[quote=StarbucksMom post_id=20604 time=<a href="tel:1500570358">1500570358</a> user_id=178]
If the LDS church was true, we wouldn't need this huge, growing pile of apologetic BS.

Thoughtful, could you maybe share the link to the polygamy story you are talking about?

http://www.lostmormonism.com/wife-of-jo ... partridge/

Thank you. Off topic, sorry--At first I thought that maybe these were his foster daughters?? But no, those were the Lawrence sisters. I had heard about the Partridge sisters but didn't realize they lived w/ JS and Emma because their father died. Seriously, I never cease to be amazed at how this is all ok to TBMs who actually know this stuff. How can preying on 4 girls-whose parents died-while you're married-behind your wife's back...be ok?
So many of the young women he married worked in his home first. Its literally like having an affair with the teenage au pair.

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: Changing doctrine

Post by Emower » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:16 pm

Red Ryder wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:44 am
Don't forget the fact that the Partridge sisters:

1. Didn't know each other were marrying JS.
2. Had already been married to JS when Emma "chose" them.
3. Second weddings were performed, to hide the first weddings from for Emma.
4. Emma received her endowment after the sham weddings.
5. Emma kicked them out of the house and they left after shaking hands with JS as their goodbye.
About this time Joseph introduced select men to the endowment ceremony. He taught that it was necessary for exaltation. Women would also be receiving the endowment and Joseph wanted his wife, Emma, to be the “Elect Lady”: the first women to receive the endowment. She would then disseminate it to the other women. The endowment requires a wife to be obedient to her husband. Because Emma was resisting plural marriage, Joseph would not let her participate in the endowment, thus risking her own exaltation as well as delaying ceremonial endowments for other women. Carrying this burden, Emma agreed to let Joseph marry additional wives; provided she could select them. Unaware of their marriage to Joseph months earlier, Emma selected her live-in helpers, Emily and Eliza. Emily recalls, “I do not know why she gave us to him, unless she thought we were where she could watch us better...” Emily continued, “To save the family trouble Brother Joseph thought it best to have another ceremony performed...[Emma] had her feelings, and so we thought there was no use in saying anything about it so long as she had chosen us herself...Accordingly...we were sealed to JS a second time, in Emma’s presence.” Within a week, Emma received her endowment.
I'm looking forward to some of these episodes on year of polygamy.
StarbucksMom wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:08 am

Seriously, I never cease to be amazed at how this is all ok to TBMs who actually know this stuff. How can preying on 4 girls-whose parents died-while you're married-behind your wife's back...be ok?
The longer I am out the more I lose my view of what it felt like to be TBM. Its a good feeling not to have to defend that kind of madness anymore.

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: Changing doctrine

Post by Emower » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:17 pm

Give It Time wrote:
Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:35 pm
This is how I determine true doctrine: does it turn my stomach and keep me up at night? If so, it's doctrine.
Ugh. How true.

User avatar
2bizE
Posts: 2405
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Changing doctrine

Post by 2bizE » Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:39 pm

I've been in the church nearly 50 years and still don't know what is mormon doctrine.
All the old, bold doctrines are no longer doctrines.
The only remaining one is to marry young girls...
~2bizE

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Changing doctrine

Post by moksha » Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:51 am

When Joseph married the Lawrence sisters, he was their legal guardian. How would the Church (or its secular side - the State of Utah) handle someone marrying their legal guardian today? Would he still be entitled to their inheritance before they came of age?
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests