quote:Originally posted by MattB: Mormonism in practice is much more fuzzy than Mormonism in theory.
...snip...
So what we're left with is them stating what they believe God's will is. They're not claiming revelation. However, a lot of Mormons tend to assume proclaimations are about revelation. A lot don't. So, again, practice versus theory.
Thanks, Matt. You have made this much clearer. The situation is very much the same as it is for Catholic (though I think we are even fuzzier in theory). There are a lot of Catholics that do think that every word the Pope speaks is straight from God - though officially we don't claim prophecy. It doesn't help that, through much of its history the church leadership has encouraged that.
Still, I would find it harder to say to a Mormon, "no really, you don't have to believe that. It wasn't prophecy and even still, there some wiggle-room" than I would to another Catholic. I would find it hard to argue a faith-based argument with a Muslim or a Jew as well if they believed that they had to conform with the leadership of their religion. I guess it just feels impolite to try to instruct someone else on their religious doctrine.
I do really appreciate your clarification. It makes a great deal of sense and it is contrary to the impression that I have gotten. The way you presented it, without getting defensive and snarky, is really lovely and I am grateful for it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: He may be seeking the GOP nomination in 08.
Oh, that's right. And in order to be more appealing to the pro-life wing of the GOP, he's trying to appear more pro-life. That would fit.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I have to ask, though, Sam: let's say that you felt that a same-sex marriage ban, for whatever reason, would be bad law, regardless of your personal stance on the morality of same-sex marriages, and actively and prominently campaigned for it. Would this get you in trouble with church leadership? I can certainly understand why individuals might be able to separate issues of morality from issues of legality, but does the church recognize that distinction when pressed?
Edit: and this is one of those questions that gets asked of Catholics, too. Should Kerry have been denied communion for his political stance on abortion? If not, why not? Where is that line drawn between dogma and policy?
Tom, I’m not sure I can answer your specific question. I have a confession to make, and don’t tell anyone about this, but I don’t know what the church leadership have said about proposed same sex marriage ban legislations. (But now I’m all curious about it so I plan to find out.)
I can say this, if they have said that we ought to pass those laws and then I go ahead and vote against the law, I would not be in any trouble with the church. It is rare that the church leadership takes a public stand for or against some piece of legislation. But even when they do take a stance, there is no reproach, onus, stigma, or whatever attached to voting contrary to their counsel.
(The only flack one might get is from some other rank-and-file member of the church who is being fanatical about something and thinks everyone ought to think like him. And he would be out of line to give me a hard time about my politics.)
It’s not like when the prophet says that we shouldn’t commit adultery and then I go ahead and do the deed anyway. That would definitely have some reproach attached. So there is a distinction between doctrine and political debate.
Like I said, it’s a rare event. The last time I can remember it happening was against the Equal Rights Amendment. The leadership took a stance because they felt it would be detrimental to the institution of the Family in the long run. But I’m pretty sure no members got in trouble for supporting that Amendment.
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still think George Romney would have made a good president. If only he had not stuck his foot in his mouth with his statement that he was "brainwashed" by the generals involved in the Vietnam War! I do not know much about Mitt Romney--but what I have heard sounds good. I would have no problem with a Mormon being president. As long as he only brings one first lady into the White House. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
MattB's statement, "Mormonism in practice is much more fuzzy than Mormonism in theory." -- is true of all churches that I know of. Most of the fuzziness comes from the fact that the common church member does not have an extensive knowledge of the official teachings of their church.
Kmboots said: "I guess it just feels impolite to try to instruct someone else on their religious doctrine." Yes, and yet I find that when I talk with members of other churches--especially Catholics--I know far more about what their church teaches than they do, so how do I discuss it with them? The first thing I have to do is draw them out and find out how much they do know. Most Catholics I have talked to, for example, do not know what their church teaches about "Original Sin" and the nature of "grace," even though these are major points in contention between Protestantism and Catholicism.
Many people will shrug and say, "Oh well, that's just theology." Sigh. The word theology means knowledge or science of God. Is it unimportant what we understand about God and His ways?
In truth, most people are content merely to inherit their religious beliefs, and do not choose them intelligently after thoughtful study and comparison with Scripture for themselves.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: MattB's statement, "Mormonism in practice is much more fuzzy than Mormonism in theory." -- is true of all churches that I know of. Most of the fuzziness comes from the fact that the common church member does not have an extensive knowledge of the official teachings of their church.
In the context I was using fuzzy, it is more fuzzy as one knows more. It is more complicated and less clear cut. At least with Catholicism - and it seems Mormonism as well. (Is that the correct term?) This is because the actual lines of hierarchical authority are less clear and less defined in reality than people generally think they are.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh--then what you are saying, kmboots, is that it is the theology that is fuzzy.
I would say that the science of salvation--exactly how it is that God saves us--becomes more complex and deep the more one studies and looks into it. But it does not become "fuzzy"!
If the theology of a church becomes fuzzier the more one knows about it, it is obvious what that might imply. But I prefer to leave it to people to see that and make judgments about it for themselves. To me, the great clarifier is the Bible. As Isaiah 8:20 declares, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." But when you accept other written documents as equal or more authoritative than the Bible, this in itself can introduce fuzziness, if they contradict each other.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
That's right, Scott. *pat pat* When he was trying to appeal to a mostly liberal state, he didn't highlight his pro-life stance out of conviction to principle; and now that he's trying to get nominated by his party for president, he's had a change of heart. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Oh--then what you are saying, kmboots, is that it is the theology that is fuzzy.
I would say that the science of salvation--exactly how it is that God saves us--becomes more complex and deep the more one studies and looks into it. But it does not become "fuzzy"!
If the theology of a church becomes fuzzier the more one knows about it, it is obvious what that might imply. But I prefer to leave it to people to see that and make judgments about it for themselves. To me, the great clarifier is the Bible. As Isaiah 8:20 declares, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." But when you accept other written documents as equal or more authoritative than the Bible, this in itself can introduce fuzziness, if they contradict each other.
What I am saying is that the more you know, the more you know that you have the authority to question, examine, and challenge doctrine. And, as I'm sure you know, we Catholics are not sola scriptura kind of folks.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is more complicated and less clear cut. At least with Catholicism
I don't think Catholic theory is fuzzy. I think it is explicit about acknowledging and defining unknowns, including their extent.
A mundane example is what happens to unbaptized babies who die. There is no definitive Catholic teaching about what happens in such a situation, yet many people are sure that the answer is Limbo (or even that it is definitively not Limbo).
The reason it seems the "fuzziness" increases with knowledge of theology is that certain things widely accepted as facts are identified as theories consistent with Catholic teaching rather than sure things.
But I think that's a superficial way to look at fuzziness. Even if most Catholics accept Limbo as official Catholic teaching, I'd bet most of those who do actually ahev a fuzzy concept of what that means. In reality, the more one studies Catholic theology, the more precisely the boundaries of those unknown are drawn, even as the unknowns get "bigger." I think that's less fuzzy.
The other part of the fuzziness relates to the fact that theological principles alone never help you arrive at precisely what you should do at any given time. Temporal understanding of the physical world is necessary.
We are taught to feed the hungry, but we need to use non-theological reasoning to identify the hungry we should feed, procure the food, and transport the food to the hungry.
This produces enormous "fuzziness," because even if two Catholics filled in all the theological unknowns the exact same way, they would still arrive at different answers to "what should I do today to serve Christ" based on not only their abilities and available resources but on how they see the rest of the world.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The desire for votes instigates many changes of heart it seems.
It's right up there with prison in leading people to Jebus.
quote: LOL
You'll never get me to apologize for taking people at their word.
We're just having fun, Scott.
Like I said, Romney isn't even on my radar yet and, in any case, nothing could convince me that all politicians aren't basically creatures of convenience. Since Romney is a politician, he gets my full cynicism. It's nothing particular about him.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sorry this isn't in response to this comment but on another you made Rivka. Could you explain to me the Jewish (if thats the right demographic term) perspective on the law laid out by Moses from God? We can call it The Law since that's what it's called in the Old Testament if that's OK with you?
Torah 101. Let me know if that answers the question(s) you're asking.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the fuzziness is in the doctrines; I think sometimes it's in our understanding of it. As we learn more, we discover that some of our assumptions about the doctrine haven't been quite correct, and we have to adjust to our new understanding.
quote:The other part of the fuzziness relates to the fact that theological principles alone never help you arrive at precisely what you should do at any given time. Temporal understanding of the physical world is necessary.
We are taught to feed the hungry, but we need to use non-theological reasoning to identify the hungry we should feed, procure the food, and transport the food to the hungry.
This is it in a nutshell, to me. I know that most Mormons are pretty much in agreement about what the central tenets and doctrines of the faith are.* I don't think the doctrines are fuzzy. It's less clear exactly how to put those teachings into practice on a daily basis, how we should expect those teachings to be incorporated into the community around us, etc. We also believe in personal revelation, which is supposed to help us decide these things. But to disagree about how to put into practice some of the doctrines of the Church is actually a pretty common thing (happens over at Nauvoo all the time).
I've never seen anyone disciplined for their political stance on abortion, SSM, or other issues. I have seen/heard of people disciplined for trying to get the Church to change their doctrine on some of these issues. Because there's a huge difference between the doctrine of the Church (or trying to dictate to the Church what that should be), and the way we interpret how those doctrines should be carried out in our lives or incorporated into society.
*(I personally disagree with MattB about whether or not the Proclamation on the Family is doctrine, BTW. I really don't think there's anything "fuzzy" about it. In this day and age if the Prophet and Apostles consider and put forth in writing a "proclamation to the world", it's treated as doctrine. They don't lightly make statements like that one as just "a good idea". But I know there are other statements that have been made that are not doctrine, rather counsel - although to most Mormons in their practical life, they're one and the same. Following counsel of the Prophet is usually a good idea.)
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"theological principles alone never help you arrive"
This was poor wording on my part. The alone part is correct, but "help" seems incompatible with that. Clearly theological principles help - in fact, they are necessary.
Please pretend it read "theological principles alone are never sufficient for you to arrive".
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sorry this isn't in response to this comment but on another you made Rivka. Could you explain to me the Jewish (if thats the right demographic term) perspective on the law laid out by Moses from God? We can call it The Law since that's what it's called in the Old Testament if that's OK with you?
Torah 101. Let me know if that answers the question(s) you're asking.
Thank you very much for your very comprehensive response on the topic. I need to create a new thread.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
(But now I’m all curious about it so I plan to find out.)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
