A Contradiction?

[_Gazelam]

I think alot of the members of the church who like to criticise the brethren ar ekind of like the guy in th eoffice whos always pestering the Boss.

"Do you want the staple in the corner of the papers slanted or squared off with the paper?"; "The new post-its are here, and they're yellow lined instead of plain yellow, and last year we only used plain yellow, what should we do?"; "Do you want me to take notes in blue ink or black ink, because last time I took notes I used a black pen, but today all I could find was blue, and I just want to make sure I'm doing this right cause blah...blah...blah ....blah."

How about you just take hold of the culture and live it, and you'll find that most of it is pretty self evident once you get the spirit of the thing.

I have no idea how this nonsence of "can't pin down" doctrine got started. What doctrine is so difficult? Whats the problem?

[_JAK]

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.

Nehor,

Just a point here since you clearly have no inclination to engage in academic discussion.

You stated:
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.

Prior to the Protestant Reformation (1517), very few people (percentage) could read. As a result, the masses believed what they were told by the officials of the Roman Catholic Church. Official church doctrine was controlled by the officialdom of the time, the RCC, and the governments which used and were used by Christianity of the day.

Presently, with more than 1,000 denominations, sects, and cults of Christianity, what passes for “official doctrine” in one group may pass for false doctrine in another group. Many Christian groups have “doctrines” which are soft in that there is flexibility of interpretation and in that interpretations continue to evolve within various groups including your LDS (or RLDS).

In that context, you statement is likely correct here.

Recognizing you have no interest in genuine intellectual discourse, you do have a point here which marginally approaches academic analysis in a limited way.

As more and more people learned to read, and as biblical scripts and additional commentary emerged, people began to form their own interpretations. As a result, “official doctrine” was/is called into question by those who read for themselves.

As a result, there are people like you in various religious groups who recognize “respect given to church authorities” as well as those who challenge specific doctrines which may be regarded as “official doctrine.”

What happens in this Protestant Reformation is a continuing of groups which form or split. The result is doctrinal shift. That is, what was/is regarded as “official doctrine” is revisited and different people (who read) reach different conclusions about meaning.

When Martin Luther challenged some particular doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, his intention was to improve the church not cause what in fact was caused by his challenges.

Today, within denominations, sects, or cults is doctrinal shift. That is, the doctrine is modified, re-stated, altered to comply with a different interpretation than was accepted as “official doctrine” previously.

In that sense, you are actually showing some intellectual inquiry in your statement here.

There is no question that doctrinal shift is a slow process as measured by the lifetime of a single person. But there is no question that in the past 500 years, doctrinal shifts have, indeed, been major. Groups split. Start-ups are formed (LDS). And the process of doctrinal reform continues in the face of information, new discoveries, and the expansion of knowledge.

JAK

[_Coggins7]

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.

This is what happens when one has only the most superficial knowledge of something and then, for whatever reasons, psychological or emotional, sets out upon a mad dash of extrapolation without any deep knowledge or experience.

This is utter nonsense. There is no such thing whatsoever as "unquestioning obedience" to church authority. We are taught, from the time we're intellectually mature enough to understand, that we are not to take the word of the leaders of the Church on anything just because they say so. No missionaries I've ever taught with have made any such claims as you are making. They've always told investigators to find out for themselves by studying the scriptures and asking God about the matter personally, not to take their word for it or Joseph Smith's.

When Will this myth making ever cease? What does it take to settle these kinds of issues?

[_Coggins7]

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

This is unintelligible. What do you mean by the term "cultish"?

[Guest]

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

This is unintelligible. What do you mean by the term "cultish"?

And this from the guy who epitomizes unintelligible.

Here's one example.

http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

Note the following characteristics:

The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

‪ Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

I know, I know, these lists are not definitive nor necessarily authoritative. They are, however, instructive.

And before we get dragged down into the debate, if pushed, I would conclude that the Mormon Church is not a cult, BUT rather it has many disturbing cult-like characteristics; something along the line of a "quasi-cult."

Although I refer to the Church as a cult frequently, that's more for rhetorical purposes than for accuracy's sake.

[_moksha]

This was a post by Charity at MAD, and I am sure that this has been run through the Correlation Committee. I mention it only in case such a concrete example may help add clarity (or fodder) to this discussion.

Charity: In this month's NAMIRS' newsletter, there is this quote from Elder Maxwell. "...disbelievers and detractors have preferred any explanation of its [The Book of Mormon] coming forth to the real one! This disdain was foreseen by the Lord, who consoled Joseph: 'Behold if they will not believe my words, they would not believe you, my servant, Joseph. If it were possible that you should show t hem all these things which I have committed unto you.' (Doctrine and Covenants 5:7.) Apparently, even if skeptics had been shown the Urim and Thummin and the plates, it would not have convinced them."

Are we still going to hear that one of the most unmovable obstacles to belief is that the plates were very conveniently taken away?

[_Coggins7]

The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

By this I assume you mean Jesus Christ? Define "excessive" in relation to a church practice, doctrine, or commitment to the authorities of the Church.

‪Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

This is partly true, but also mostly irrelevant, as these dynamics are true of many, if not most philosophies, ideologies, and organizations dedicated to a strongly held system of belief. There is nothing particularly "cultish" about any of these attributes. Charles Manson discouraged questioning, doubt, and dissent among his followers, as did Jim Jones. So do the Democratic and Republican parties. So does the Roman Catholic Church. So do metaphysical materialists like Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins. I fail to see a salient point here.

And, as you know full well, or should if your going to critique the LDS faith, that dissent is only punished at the extremities, including when one takes his dissent into the public square and attacks and impugns the Church in that public square. That's quite different from private, personal dissent.

[_The Nehor]

...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.

That we suck at writing good teaching manuals I accept. Having taught many classes my standard method is to find out what is supposed to be taught and then toss the manual aside and teach mostly from the Scriptures. I remember DCP (I assume that's who you're referring to) saying he couldn't teach from a manual and he thought they were awful but I don't remember him saying he thought they were engineered to make people stupid.

[_JAK]

This is what happens when one has only the most superficial knowledge of something and then, for whatever reasons, psychological or emotional, sets out upon a mad dash of extrapolation without any deep knowledge or experience.

This is utter nonsense. There is no such thing whatsoever as "unquestioning obedience" to church authority. We are taught, from the time we're intellectually mature enough to understand, that we are not to take the word of the leaders of the Church on anything just because they say so. No missionaries I've ever taught with have made any such claims as you are making. They've always told investigators to find out for themselves by studying the scriptures and asking God about the matter personally, not to take their word for it or Joseph Smith's.

When Will this myth making ever cease? What does it take to settle these kinds of issues?

Coggins7,

An essential for religion is “superficial knowledge of something.” Academic inquiry is most destructive to religion. What particular religious persuasion is not particularly relevant. Religion exerts control by indoctrination. Opposite indoctrination, we have education. And, education is a clear enemy of religion.

Now you state:
There is no such thing whatsoever as "unquestioning obedience" to church authority.

An unlikely case. Otherwise, “church authority” would cease to be “church authority.” As people question the official position of any institution, those people threaten the credibility of that institution. The more evidence the questioners bring to the table, the greater threat to “church authority.”

Any religious organization is only as influential as its doctrines and dogmas are imposed on the believers. Allowing believers their own interpretation invites decent. Thinking outside the box is not welcomed by religious organizations. It’s exactly why fractures occur and new groups or different groups are formed.

Since Christianity is a most fractured religion as a result of contradictions in its scripts and differences in interpretations of its doctrines, more thinking or independent conclusions are factors which weaken the doctrines of any religious group.

Now you state:
No missionaries I've ever taught with have made any such claims as you are making. They've always told investigators to find out for themselves by studying the scriptures and asking God about the matter personally, not to take their word for it or Joseph Smith's.

I’m most skeptical of your claim. It would produce anarchy in religious doctrine to allow honest intellectual “find out for themselves...” They can conclude anything they like. They might even convert to Southern Baptist -- a strong Christian group with substantial numbers.

No organized religious group at the top of its controlling leadership wants serious freethinking or questioning.

JAK

[_Blixa]

This was a post by Charity at MAD, and I am sure that this has been run through the Correlation Committee. I mention it only in case such a concrete example may help add clarity (or fodder) to this discussion.

Charity: In this month's NAMIRS' newsletter, there is this quote from Elder Maxwell. "...disbelievers and detractors have preferred any explanation of its [The Book of Mormon] coming forth to the real one! This disdain was foreseen by the Lord, who consoled Joseph: 'Behold if they will not believe my words, they would not believe you, my servant, Joseph. If it were possible that you should show t hem all these things which I have committed unto you.' (Doctrine and Covenants 5:7.) Apparently, even if skeptics had been shown the Urim and Thummin and the plates, it would not have convinced them."

Are we still going to hear that one of the most unmovable obstacles to belief is that the plates were very conveniently taken away?

That, Moksha, was both the funniest and scariest thing I have ever read. I think finally, more frightening than humorous.