A Contradiction?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

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.

I actually would define indoctrination as a method of teaching more than the actual teaching. But either way, why is it unfortunate? Doesn't it answer your question and make your problem go away if you understand what the critics are saying? If you change your first point to something more consistent with the point that critics make, it would go more like this: "There is a program of indoctrination and what we teach dulls the mind due to the lack of thought involved." So unless you insist that critics are saying, "There is a program of indoctrination and the undisputed doctrine you teach (as opposed to the other 95% of what gets taught) dulls the mind due to the lack of thought involved," then where's the conundrum?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

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)

TBMs come up with these false dilemnas all the time. One or both assertions are always flawed, or they are based on the assumption that there is a "critics handbook" somewhere to which all critics conform.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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.

It's a difference of perception. What Mormons see as showing respect for the prophet, outsiders see as unquestioning obedience. Non-mormons show respect for the office of the President of the US, but we don't teach our children to sing "Follow the President, Follow the President, Follow the President, Don't go Astray, Follow the President, Follow the President, Follow the President, He knows the way."

[_Runtu]

It's a difference of perception. What Mormons see as showing respect for the prophet, outsiders see as unquestioning obedience. Non-mormons show respect for the office of the President of the US, but we don't teach our children to sing "Follow the President, Follow the President, Follow the President, Don't go Astray, Follow the President, Follow the President, Follow the President, He knows the way."

I'm not an outsider, but I'd say the way it's presented to members from early on in life is pretty danged close to unquestioning obedience. We were taught that if we didn't agree with our leaders, we should pray to get confirmation that it was right. But we weren't told what to do if the answer was no. President Benson taught that if our leaders told us to do something wrong, we should do it anyway and let them be responsible for doing the wrong. That's pretty close to unquestioning obedience, if you ask me.

[Physics Guy]

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.

Terrific questions, Nehor. "Official doctrine," as you are quite right to point out, is very, very difficult to pin down in the LDS Church. At its very root, the word "doctrine" means "teaching." Thus, anything that is authoritatively taught within the Church ought to be considered "official doctrine." But we all know that's not the case. For example, various reasons for the ban on Blacks on the priesthood were "taught," but how many of those are considered to be "official doctrine"? There is another level to this, too, which is the way these [un?]official teachings affect people's day-to-day lives, for example, the WoW. Is it "official doctrine" to not drink caffeinated beverages? Is it "official doctrine" to not wear two earrings?

In a sense, your first question vis-a-vis "official doctrine" reflects back on your first question about obedience. Part of the "unquestioning" obedience that one finds in the Church comes as a result of (in my opinion) ignorance. In fact, I would argue that at least some of the Brethren would prefer that the membership remain totally in the dark on some controversial subjects. And again, I think it is very important to remember that this obedience is achieved in very subtle ways. E.g., most TBMs talk about treating the leaders with "respect." But what this really means, from a more objective perspective, is that TBMs have thrown away their God-given right to question the authority of the leaders in any meaningful or public way. Of course, any good TBM with a background in apologetics will just say, "I haven't thrown away my right to criticize, I just *choose* not to criticize." Oddly enough, I have never, ever seen a TBM criticize any of the living Brethren. Is this really just "choice", on a massive, mob-mentality scale? Or is there something deeper at work?

So, to get back to your original point, (i.e., point #1), I would say that the "dulling of the mind," so to speak, comes not from a "program of indoctrination," but from ignorance, and from other socialized behaviors in the Church, such as a totalitarian unwillingness to question the Brethren, or even lesser leaders, as evidenced by the almost always unanimous sea of hands that are raised during sustaining votes.

[_Blixa]

I think criticism (not name calling, actual critical consideration) is respect. In other words, I take the ideas under scrutiny to be important enough to counter them or demand further clarification, and I respect the bearer of such ideas as mature enough not to see this as personal attack, but as an urgent inquiry with consequences for all. This is how I define these terms to my students.

I also don't see the two statements as a contradiction, Nehor. One is told to obey what is currently being called "doctrine." Those boundaries later change, and one is then told to unquestioningly obey them as "doctrine."

[_guy sajer]

I don't have the time to find it, but perhaps someone else can for me.

A few conferences back, one of the members of the 70 gave a talk in which one of the themes was the virtues of unquestioning obedience. I remember it well, because when the Conference Ensign issue came out, I showed it to my wife and asked her if that's what we really want to teach our children.

GBH also recently gave a conference talk in which he extolled the virtues of loyalty to the Church. Someone can find that one too if they have a mind.

The temple ceremony requires one to promise to sacrifice all they have to the "church" (not to God, mind you).

Then there was the recent conference talk in which the speaker made clear that there was no such thing as "loyal opposition" to the Church (this was provided to The Nehor a few weeks back).

Then there's Oaks (I think) in a talk saying it is wrong to criticize Church leaders, even if the criticism is spot on.

These are but a few of many examples that could be dredged up if one took the time.

Anyone who claims that Mormonism, in its current manifestation, doesn't emphasize obedience to ecclesiastical authority as a primary human virtue simply isn't paying attention.

[_rcrocket]

Anyone who claims that Mormonism, in its current manifestation, doesn't emphasize obedience to ecclesiastical authority as a primary human virtue simply isn't paying attention.

Would cites to Biblical and Apostolic authority have any persuasive value? The ancient church was the same way. Indeed, in the case of Annanias and Sapphira, you'd get killed for disobedience.

rcrocket

[_guy sajer]

Anyone who claims that Mormonism, in its current manifestation, doesn't emphasize obedience to ecclesiastical authority as a primary human virtue simply isn't paying attention.

Would cites to Biblical and Apostolic authority have any persuasive value? The ancient church was the same way. Indeed, in the case of Annanias and Sapphira, you'd get killed for disobedience.

rcrocket

Persuasive in what sense? That they were as cultish as the current Mormon Church?

What was practiced by ancients is hardly in itself persuasive justification for modern day practices. We've come a long way since then.

I put in the modifier "in its present manifestation" just to make sure the frame of reference was clear not to suggest that it's been any different at any other time.

But, thanks anyway for implicitly agreeing with me.

[_grayskull]

...strangely, i posted on this, the post doesn't show up now but if I do a search on all my posts it shows there, so I'm copying and pasting it:

Nehor,

What you're suggesting isn't unreasonable. But 98% of the time you've got to first distinguish between Chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons. Sunday School, Seminary, and the MTC are classical programs of thought indoctrination. Basically, the entire corpus of church curriculum is engineered for mind numbery. This has even been admitted by a certain famous apologist who helped develop some of these programs, and he boastfully declares he does not follow church curriculum in his classes save it be to establish the topic.

Chapel Mormons, including the prophets, seers, and revelators believe the church was restored for a reason and has doctrine. Inet Mormons believe church doctrine is established by whatever their hobby-horse area of interest for the week gives them mental fulfillment.