wenglund wrote:That is certainly one way of looking at it.
Others, however, may view it as a way of avoiding debilitating rigidity and pigeon-holing, and allowing for epistemic progress, healthy change and flexibility, and encouraging a maturing shift from authoritative dependance to personal inter-dependance, which some of us deem far from stange and disturbing.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Wade, I was thinking about certain apologists when I said that, and I do believe that some people use the "no official doctrine" thing for just that purpose. It wasn't meant as a slam. Just an observation.
Blixa wrote:This phrase of Don's is especially pertinent, I think:
"The "official doctrine" distinction is a defense used by Latter-day Saints against their own beliefs."
That's what makes it such a strange and disturbing element of apologetics..
Agreed. It allows them to jettison any teachings they find uncomfortable or embarrassing.
That is certainly one way of looking at it.
Others, however, may view it as a way of avoiding debilitating rigidity and pigeon-holing, and allowing for epistemic progress, healthy change and flexibility, and encouraging a maturing shift from authoritative dependance to personal inter-dependance, which some of us deem far from stange and disturbing.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
My response was about apologetics as well (broadly construed). What I find disturbing is the rejection of LDS beliefs in the cause of defending them. When the "official doctrine" card is played, the result is a denial of large sections of historical LDS experience---and I find that an ultimately limiting and impoverishing move. There is much in the history of Mormonism, especially in terms of the early years in Utah up through my grandparents generation, that is denigrated by such rhetoric. I think its their loss, frankly.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Blixa wrote:My response was about apologetics as well (broadly construed). What I find disturbing is the rejection of LDS beliefs in the cause of defending them. When the "official doctrine" card is played, the result is a denial of large sections of historical LDS experience---and I find that an ultimately limiting and impoverishing move. There is much in the history of Mormonism, especially in terms of the early years in Utah up through my grandparents generation, that is denigrated by such rhetoric. I think its their loss, frankly.
That's pretty much what I was thinking. Sort of the "we have to destroy the village to save it" mentality. I don't get it.
wenglund wrote:Having, myself, come of age during the 70's and 80"s, and having participated in apologetics during and since that time, I haven't noticed a "protestantizing" of my own beliefs, or the Church's for that matter. Granted, I have noticed some shifts in the my own apologetics over time, but that was more a function of the change I encountered in kinds of criticism directed towards the Church. Using a fencing metaphor, different argumentational thrusts necessitate different argumentational parries.
It is possible, though, that I may be the exception rather than the rule, but from what I have observed, I am not.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I wouldn't call it a Protestantizing, per se, but the shift in the discussions back in the 80s was a defensive move against the "not Christians" label, as was the change in the church's logo.
That said, I don't think there's been a change in what the church teaches its members, but rather how it presents itself to outsiders. That has indeed changed since the 1970s.
I think what you are referring to are changes in marketing/PR, rather than apologetics or doctrines (as some may have suggested). To me, there was a huge change in marketing and PR in the mid 70's and early 80's, which to me didn't amount so much to a "protestantizing" of the Church's message, but rather where the Church went from relatively little or no marketing/PR at all (consisting mostly of Conference broadcasts and the Sunday broadcast of the Spoke Word), to a relatively active campaign of TV and radio commercial talking about the Church's message about the family (which ironically, though perhaps not coincidentaly, is a message that not a few protestants have since picked up on and run with). The change in the Church's logo was, to me, but a minor part thereof.
Further, I would say, Wade that this result is much to be desired:
allowing for epistemic progress, healthy change and flexibility, and encouraging a maturing shift from authoritative dependance to personal inter-dependance
and would heartily support that among individuals. But I think the way to achieve it is to have discussion (on all levels of the church from the "official" to ad hoc apologetics to individual discussion on message boards, at church meetings and at home) which emphasized the full range of LDS history with all its quirks, eccentricities, mistakes, accomplishments, rather than to cordone off things into no-go zones like "not doctrine," "speaking as a man," "not necessary for my salvation," etc.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
wenglund wrote: I think what you are referring to are changes in marketing/PR, rather than apologetics or doctrines (as some may have suggested). To me, there was a huge change in marketing and PR in the mid 70's and early 80's, which to me didn't amount so much to a "protestantizing" of the Church's message, but rather where the Church went from relatively little or no marketing/PR at all (consisting mostly of Conference broadcasts and the Sunday broadcast of the Spoke Word), to a relatively active campaign of TV and radio commercial talking about the Church's message about the family (which ironically, though perhaps not coincidentaly, is a message that not a few protestants have since picked up on and run with). The change in the Church's logo was, to me, but a minor part thereof.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I think it's been both in PR/marketing and apologetics. And I agree with Blixa that the backing off from some traditional teachings has indeed been a loss for the church. When I was a young missionary, I thought its radical theology was exciting and inspiring. These days we get "we don't know much about that" and the like. It's a shame.
wenglund wrote:That is certainly one way of looking at it.
Others, however, may view it as a way of avoiding debilitating rigidity and pigeon-holing, and allowing for epistemic progress, healthy change and flexibility, and encouraging a maturing shift from authoritative dependance to personal inter-dependance, which some of us deem far from stange and disturbing.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Wade, I was thinking about certain apologists when I said that, and I do believe that some people use the "no official doctrine" thing for just that purpose. It wasn't meant as a slam. Just an observation.
My comments applied to apologetics as well--though not exclusively to apologetics. And, I didn't take your comments to be a slam, but just a different perception from my own.
wenglund wrote:My comments applied to apologetics as well--though not exclusively to apologetics. And, I didn't take your comments to be a slam, but just a different perception from my own.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
To be clear, what I mean is that some apologists and PR types have used the "it's not official doctrine" statement as a rhetorical tool to make Mormonism seem more mainstream. I agree with Blixa that such backpedaling loses some of Mormonism's historical flavor.
Blixa wrote:Further, I would say, Wade that this result is much to be desired:
allowing for epistemic progress, healthy change and flexibility, and encouraging a maturing shift from authoritative dependance to personal inter-dependance
and would heartily support that among individuals. But I think the way to achieve it is to have discussion (on all levels of the church from the "official" to ad hoc apologetics to individual discussion on message boards, at church meetings and at home) which emphasized the full range of LDS history with all its quirks, eccentricities, mistakes, accomplishments, rather than to cordone off things into no-go zones like "not doctrine," "speaking as a man," "not necessary for my salvation," etc.
Were Church history to be the locus or source of faith, then I may agree. However, I don't believe it is--though I think it may be useful to nurturing faith. To me, the objective of the Church is to facilitate spiritual growth, not to be a history major. As such, only the essentials of Church history that lend themselves to the Church's objective need be presented or pursued. But, that may just be me.
Blixa wrote:My response was about apologetics as well (broadly construed). What I find disturbing is the rejection of LDS beliefs in the cause of defending them. When the "official doctrine" card is played, the result is a denial of large sections of historical LDS experience---and I find that an ultimately limiting and impoverishing move. There is much in the history of Mormonism, especially in terms of the early years in Utah up through my grandparents generation, that is denigrated by such rhetoric. I think its their loss, frankly.
Is it possible that your perception here is simply a function of what you once viewed as "official doctrine" not being the same as what apologist have long viewed as the same, and what you view as a change in them is actual just your eventual realization of your different perception from other members of the Church? Could you have had a more inclusive, and yet rigid, understanding of "official doctrine" than apologist? I ask, because during the several decades of apologetics, I don't believe I change much if at all in my view of what is "official doctrine" and what is not, and I was often suprised when former members and even members would tell me that certain things were "official doctrine" that I didn't consider as such. I also don't think I have attatched the level of importance to "official doctrine" as perhaps others, such as yourself, might have. In fact, I am more than a bit puzzled how supposedly large sections of Mormonism are somehow denied by me taking a less inclusive and less rigid view of "official doctrine", let alone how it may be limiting and impoverishing or denigrating. While I may not classify certain things as "official doctrine" that you might have, that does not mean I don't acknowledge those things at all, nor am I limiting or impoverishing the Church history in doing so. It is just that I am viewing those things in different ways than you--perhaps as Church teachings or policy rather than "official doctrine".