A Contradiction?

[_The Nehor]

I was on a lunch date earlier and I was thinking about the things that have been said here (yes, the date was that boring).

I've noticed two criticisms leveled against the Church:

1. There is a program of indoctrination and that the doctrine we teach dulls the mind due to the lack of thought involved. (I disagree with this one)

2. You can't pin us down on any doctrinal point and there is very little official doctrine. (I agree with this one)

Can these both be true? Can there be a program of indoctrination when there is so little declared doctrine to indoctrinate with? Thoughts?

[_Runtu]

I was on a lunch date earlier and I was thinking about the things that have been said here (yes, the date was that boring).

I've noticed two criticisms leveled against the Church:

1. There is a program of indoctrination and that the doctrine we teach dulls the mind due to the lack of thought involved. (I disagree with this one)

2. You can't pin us down on any doctrinal point and there is very little official doctrine. (I agree with this one)

Can these both be true? Can there be a program of indoctrination when there is so little declared doctrine to indoctrinate with? Thoughts?

I think the indoctrination consists of unquestioning obedience to church authority. I've said before that "official doctrine" really refers to whatever it is the current authorities are teaching. I don't see these two as mutually exclusive.

I wouldn't say that church indoctrination "dulls the mind" but rather shuts down a natural desire to question and think things through.

[_Who Knows]

I agree with Runtu:

Follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet,
Don't go astray

Follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet,
He knows the way.

Alternatively, perhaps it has something to do with the whole internet/chapel Mormon thing. In other words, chapel Mormon's probably believe that the 2 earing thing is doctrine.

But that sorta relates to what runtu said as well...

[_Runtu]

Alternatively, perhaps it has something to do with the whole internet/chapel Mormon thing. In other words, chapel Mormon's probably believe that the 2 earing thing is doctrine.

But that sorta relates to what runtu said as well...

Somebody I know once said, "No one is more dismissive of Mormon prophets than Mormon apologists." In the church, we are taught that the prophet is not infallible, that he's allowed to make mistakes. But if you were to come out and say, "I think the prophet is making a mistake in X, Y, or Z," that's grounds for a disciplinary council. However, once a prophet is dead and gone, people feel free to dismiss what they say as mere personal opinion.

For example, nearly everyone considers Joseph Fielding Smith's harsh denunciations of evolution to be his opinion. Prophets, it seems, can be wrong about man, his origin and destiny. But I don't know any church members who think we should similarly dismiss the call to wear only one earring because it's Hinckley's personal opinion.

[_The Nehor]

I think the indoctrination consists of unquestioning obedience to church authority. I've said before that "official doctrine" really refers to whatever it is the current authorities are teaching. I don't see these two as mutually exclusive.

I wouldn't say that church indoctrination "dulls the mind" but rather shuts down a natural desire to question and think things through.

I would question whether that is even "official doctrine".

I haven't found an unquestioning obedience to church authority. I have seen respect given to church authorities.

[_Runtu]

I would question whether that is even "official doctrine".

Define official doctrine. I know how they defined it when I worked for the church, but I'm interested in how you define it.

I haven't found an unquestioning obedience to church authority. I have seen respect given to church authorities.

Maybe it's because I'm older than you, but I've seen a constant drive to ensure obedience and conformity. I've seen respect too.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I was on a lunch date earlier and I was thinking about the things that have been said here (yes, the date was that boring).

I've noticed two criticisms leveled against the Church:

1. There is a program of indoctrination and that the doctrine we teach dulls the mind due to the lack of thought involved. (I disagree with this one)

2. You can't pin us down on any doctrinal point and there is very little official doctrine. (I agree with this one)

Can these both be true? Can there be a program of indoctrination when there is so little declared doctrine to indoctrinate with? Thoughts?

Seems like the word "indoctrination" can be used a little more loosely than just to mean what has been identified and agreed upon as clear doctrine. The "indoctrination" (if that word is used) would refer to everything taught in church. Critics pretty much agree that church doctrine is ambiguous, and even TBMs would (or should?) agree that what is taught is not restricted to official doctrine.

So there you go. Criticism of the church always makes sense if you think clearly about it. :)

[_The Nehor]

I would question whether that is even "official doctrine".

Define official doctrine. I know how they defined it when I worked for the church, but I'm interested in how you define it.

I haven't found an unquestioning obedience to church authority. I have seen respect given to church authorities.

Maybe it's because I'm older than you, but I've seen a constant drive to ensure obedience and conformity. I've seen respect too.

I would define official doctrine as the canon of the Church and declarations and revelations sustained by the Church. Is that what they taught you?

[_Runtu]

I would define official doctrine as the canon of the Church and declarations and revelations sustained by the Church. Is that what they taught you?

At the COB, "doctrine" consists of what is in the standard works of the church. Nothing outside the canon is considered doctrinal. However, anything that has been through Correlation (meaning anything published since 1970) is considered consistent with doctrine.

[_The Nehor]

Seems like the word "indoctrination" can be used a little more loosely than just to mean what has been identified and agreed upon as clear doctrine. The "indoctrination" (if that word is used) would refer to everything taught in church. Critics pretty much agree that church doctrine is ambiguous, and even TBMs would (or should?) agree that what is taught is not restricted to official doctrine.

So there you go. Criticism of the church always makes sense if you think clearly about it. :)

Unfortunately if you define indoctrination that way it's a synonym for teaching. Yeah, I admit the Church teaches things beyond official doctrine but I don't see how a teacher can avoid doing that.