NOM

1. Both the Melchezideck and Levitical Priesthoods will fail to manifest themselves in the presence of the double X chromosome.

2. In 2012 God voted for Mitt Romney and in 2016 He refused to vote because Trump was on the ballot. However, God was okay with the MoTab Choir performing at the Trump Inauguration because Jackie Evancho was also performing.

3. If there was anything to global warming, God would have revealed it to his prophets, seers, and revelators.

4. Of all various mayonnaise base condiments, Fry Sauce is the most pleasing to God.

5. BMWs are the preferred automobiles by 95% of the Heavenly Host.

6. Not drinking coffee and tea is a supreme test of faith due to their being health-promoting beverages.

7. Trump will make the Constitution "hang by a thread" and it will be rescued by one of Mitt Romney's dressage ponies.

8. Satan was laughing with delight when he learned of Dieter Uchtdorf's demotion.

9. Lime green is the holiest color of Jell-O.

10. Consiglieri's award-winning podcast is a sign of the end times.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:04 am

alas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:13 am So, using birth control being a decision between the husband and wife after prayer is a member invented doctrin. Because the church leaders were teaching birth control as a sin and the members first came up with the idea that it was none of the top leaders business, but only the business of the couple and maybe God.

Yeah, I think that qualifies as a member invented doctrine, because now the leaders have accepted it as official.

And I guess having a vasectomy without talking to your bishop first is also a member invented doctrine...just has not made it to the handbook yet.

And it was a bunch of women who worried about children running wild after school because there mothers were still working who came up with the idea of have a fun kind of classes to keep the kids busy and off the street and started primary. The leaders saw it was a good idea and adopted it church wide. Then later ruined it by putting it on Sunday so it was no longer fun, but really just Sunday School.

Church welfare program started with one bishop during the depression, but I don't remember the full story. But church leaders liked the idea and adopted it church wide.

These ones are particularly interesting as they were member-created ones that were subsequently accepted by the leaders. The birth control ones are examples of the leaders being dragged into more current ideas because the members just weren't willing to submit.

Is it doctrine through? While the policy changed, we're still encouraged to marry young, and start having kids asap. Sure, they dont say not to use birth control but the idea if multiple and replenish the earth as much as possible is intact. Ive never heard leadership say anything close to having kids is optional in marriage. Id say that still the doctrine regardless of policy.

mooseman wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 4:43 pm Is it doctrine through? While the policy changed, we're still encouraged to marry young, and start having kids asap. Sure, they dont say not to use birth control but the idea if multiple and replenish the earth as much as possible is intact. Ive never heard leadership say anything close to having kids is optional in marriage. Id say that still the doctrine regardless of policy.

If you can explain to me the difference between doctrine and policy, at least in the LDS Church, then I could figure out how to respond.

(Basically, as far as I can tell, policy is something that can be changed whereas doctrine is unchanging. So we have to wait a few decades to see if something is policy or doctrine. And nothing that existed from the founding of the Church is doctrine, because it has all changed since then.)

Thats the hard thing to pin down in Mormonism isnt it? Id say doctrine is the "big picture" of the what and why. You're right in that its all changed, but the question was which ones came from members? Id say members can influence policy, but not doctrine. Policy is the hedge, how its applied. Ie all "must" be baptized (doctrine) but if the kids 9 he still has to talk to the missionaries and counts as a convert, but the 8 year old doesnt (policy).
Or families must be sealed to be eternal (doctrine) but a civil ceremony first may mean a year wait (policy).
Or God and Jesus are seperate, eternal beings with bodies (doctrine) and they teach that 1 version of the first vision (a policy).
Untimely, the end goal is the same (the doctrine) but they can change how you get there (via policy). For example, members may not like the doctrine of polygamy but say section 132 isnt doctrine youre exed. That help?

We were admonished to "just love sparingly".

mooseman wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:46 pm Thats the hard thing to pin down in Mormonism isnt it? Id say doctrine is the "big picture" of the what and why.

I'd say a doctrine is a belief or set of beliefs held by, in this case, a church by virtue of it being the dictionary definition of the word. The idea of big picture belief versus day to day operation or expression is mostly the product of Mormons trying to twist and turn away from admitting doctrine changes or that doctrine was wrong (much easier to say policy was mistaken). So something like the exaltation ban on black members was both a policy (there were written policies excluding them from temple worship) and also a belief (the church and its members believed they should be excluded). Your example of a certain method of teaching converts is a decent example of policy, though Mormonism has a way of turning policy into doctrine as members and official rhetoric go on and on about how inspired the structured lesson approach is and before you know it reciting the 1st vision isn't just how the church decided to structure it's lessons but members a come to believe it is how god wants investigators to be taught.

Note, I don't think the distinction between policy and doctrine is completely useless, but if your policy mirrors (either to begin with or over time) your beliefs coming along and going, "It was a/is policy, not doctrine!" is disingenuous (I'm not accusing you of doing this).

I had a bishop that said a Mel priesthood holder was required to open a sacrament meeting. Not sure where he got that one. Is it in a handbook somewhere?

Dravin wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:17 am

mooseman wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:46 pm Thats the hard thing to pin down in Mormonism isnt it? Id say doctrine is the "big picture" of the what and why.

I'd say a doctrine is a belief or set of beliefs held by, in this case, a church by virtue of it being the dictionary definition of the word. The idea of big picture belief versus day to day operation or expression is mostly the product of Mormons trying to twist and turn away from admitting doctrine changes or that doctrine was wrong (much easier to say policy was mistaken). So something like the exaltation ban on black members was both a policy (there were written policies excluding them from temple worship) and also a belief (the church and its members believed they should be excluded). Your example of a certain method of teaching converts is a decent example of policy, though Mormonism has a way of turning policy into doctrine as members and official rhetoric go on and on about how inspired the structured lesson approach is and before you know it reciting the 1st vision isn't just how the church decided to structure it's lessons but members a come to believe it is how god wants investigators to be taught.

Note, I don't think the distinction between policy and doctrine is completely useless, but if your policy mirrors (either to begin with or over time) your beliefs coming along and going, "It was a/is policy, not doctrine!" is disingenuous (I'm not accusing you of doing this).

Technically I would say that primary and the welfare programs are neither doctrine or policy, but programs. So, a still different concept. But the Mormon church is St top down, and might I add top heavy, that all of the doctrines or semi doctrines that people are throwing out, Jeffret is pointing out how the idea first came from a leader.

So, my next guess would be the WoW. Emma suggested to Joseph that she was tired of cleaning up after his messy friends and that it would be nice if he could come up with a revelation that tobacco use was not pleasing to God, and low and behold, we get revelation.

Oh, and edited to add that I really like this idea that the difference between doctrine and policy is what Mormons use to claim that God is not changing our doctrine all over the place, which was why I quoted this bit of wisdom.

moksha wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:40 am 10. Consiglieri's award-winning podcast is a sign of the end times.

Consiglieri's "Radio Free Mormon" IS a sign of the end times, but not for the planet. The end of the current style of LDS administration will happen far sooner, even if the corporation sole of "The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" continues to be a legal entity for another few centuries.

alas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 am Technically I would say that primary and the welfare programs are neither doctrine or policy, but programs. So, a still different concept. But the Mormon church is St top down, and might I add top heavy, that all of the doctrines or semi doctrines that people are throwing out, Jeffret is pointing out how the idea first came from a leader.

I'm also trying to make sure we don't absolve church leaders of their role in creating these problems. They like to blame everything on the members and say that they just got it wrong. It's their way of trying to maintain their infallibility of themselves and their predecessors, while shifting the blame to the members. With many of these, they absolutely did start with the leaders but if you're not familiar enough with the history you might accept the Church's claim that we have always been at war with Eastasia.

There are some that legitimately come from members. "Saturday's Warrior" seems to be a particularly fount of that, as people confuse an artistic storyline with doctrinal pronouncement. Of course, there is ample precedent for that as Nephi Anderson's 1898 book "Added Upon" demonstrates. Extremely popular in its day, "Added Upon" had a definite influence on Mormonism in its day that continues into our times. Indeed, "Saturday's Warrior" is kind of a musical re-telling of "Added Upon", in a land that is perpetually Saturday. Even before its founding, Mormon doctrine was based upon story-telling, as Joseph spun stories, some of which were written down and published.

As best I can tell from the doctrines proposed in this thread, for the most part the doctrines that originate from members are progressive, productive, and adapting to societal changes. Some of them result to solve specific problems. Those that are more wacky, weird, or anachronistic are ones that originated from leaders but today they would rather we would just forget about many of them.

There is another class of doctrine I observe, which arises from the conservative, religious, Western, political culture that Mormonism is awash in. Mormons like to think they are unique and separate from the world, but the reality is that they are heavily influenced by those portions of society. The admonitions against D&D are a strong example of this. These ideas were common fodder of religious conservatives in the 80's. Though some members latched onto this hysteria it didn't really catch fire in Mormonism. Many members didn't know anything about it until the Pace memorandum in 1990. Though Pace, representing the Church as a member of the Presiding Bishopric, was coming late to the topic his memo showed that it was considered important to church leaders. That kicked off the highest interest in the topic in Utah.

moksha wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:44 pm We were admonished to "just love sparingly".

That message from a current church talk has to be one of the saddest portents of all. Faith, hope, and charity/love was the bulwark of Christianity, with charity/love being above all else. We deserve better than a bizarro world version of this bulwark.

Much better to make a new member-made doctrine:

Love as unconditionally as you are able.

You have to wear white shirts to bless or pass the sacrament. While it was mentioned in a couple talks in conference, the general membership has taken this really far on their own.

Lloyd Christmas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:41 pm You have to wear white shirts to bless or pass the sacrament. While it was mentioned in a couple talks in conference, the general membership has taken this really far on their own.

I thought of the white shirt mandate as well. I can across a nice academic article that explains much of the process behind the practice. I will attach a link. If you don’t have much time, start at the Uniforms section.
In a nutshell, a lot of the excessive formalities of th church actually started at the ward level and then became popular as other folks saw what the various wards were doing. Some church leaders endorsed the processes.


https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/view ... imwjournal


A few highlights:


Robert L. Simpson, a notable member of the church who served as a counselor in the Presiding Bishopric and member of the First Quorum of the Seventy—both of which are appointments which confer authority for general governance of the Church—spoke at a Brigham Young University convocation and related his experience as a deacon in the early1930s. His story illustrates the mores of sacrament administration during that time:
Our new chapel had just been dedicated. It was beautiful. We were so proud. We even had a separate sacrament alcove behind the bishopric seats on the stand. Bit by bit we tried to enhance our sacrament service. Red velour drapes were installed to be drawn apart at the precise psychological moment. Smaller drapes revealing a picture of the Last Supper were drawn just before the sacrament prayers were given. All of the deacons wore white shirts and black bow ties. And last but not least, we had worked out a system of musical chimes to signal the opening of the drapes and the sacrament prayers. It was the most beautiful and dramatic sacrament presentation ever devised in any dis- pensation. Even the stake president was impressed—so much so that he invited President Heber J. Grant to come and see the Church’s new ‘Hollywood’ version of the sacrament. President Grant accepted the invitation and witnessed what turned out to be our final presentation. We were taught in unmistakable, but kindly, terms what the sacrament service should be. I’ll never forget that lesson. It was valuable not only to me, but to everyone else in that ward and in that stake.”

Lloyd Christmas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:41 pm You have to wear white shirts to bless or pass the sacrament. While it was mentioned in a couple talks in conference, the general membership has taken this really far on their own.

FWIW, here's current policy, per Handbook 2:

Those who bless and pass the sacrament should dress modestly and be well groomed and clean. Clothing or jewelry should not call attention to itself or distract members during the sacrament. Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate. Nor should it be required that all be alike in dress and appearance. Bishops should use discretion when giving such guidance to young men, taking into account their financial circumstances and maturity in the Church.

Last year, my son was benched because he wasn't wearing a white shirt and tie, after I showed this to the YM president. To his credit, afterward the YM president looked it up and acknowledged that I was right.

He's a fairly rigid thinker. Some people are especially rigid. I think church culture tends to promote them. They get things done and follow the rules.

This might be a strange one but I've gotten "I don't think you can really believe in the gospel if you don't celebrate Christmas" from a couple of members.

Mad Jax wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:00 am This might be a strange one but I've gotten "I don't think you can really believe in the gospel if you don't celebrate Christmas" from a couple of members.

Were they specific in what parts of Christmas you had to specifically celebrate? Did it necessarily include a ward Christmas party, a decorated tree in your house, stockings, and attending a "Messiah" sing-along? Could you simply wake up on December 25 and say "Happy Birthday, Jesus!" without further commercial fanfare? I can understand avoiding some holiday silliness, but it's not actually a commandment. Faith, repentance, and baptism is a commandment. Buying a humorous T-shirt and wrapping it in gaudy paper for your nephew is not.

I told them I basically ignore the holiday and don't care for the imagery of it much. I saw no reason to treat it as a day that was any different, I think that at its core it's still a Roman/pagan holiday, and that believers giving Easter more attention made more sense to me. I have some bad/negative memories of it as well, and that ignoring it benefits me the most in a psychological sense. But all of that was merely me obviously not really believing in the restoration of the gospel, because not celebrating a holiday in which no commandment is given to celebrate it proves something, I guess.

The afterlife will be a lot of hard, rewarding work but it is still cool because people really like hard work deep down inside.

It is actually pretty awesome.

Reuben wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:31 pm

Lloyd Christmas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:41 pm You have to wear white shirts to bless or pass the sacrament. While it was mentioned in a couple talks in conference, the general membership has taken this really far on their own.

FWIW, here's current policy, per Handbook 2:

Those who bless and pass the sacrament should dress modestly and be well groomed and clean. Clothing or jewelry should not call attention to itself or distract members during the sacrament. Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate. Nor should it be required that all be alike in dress and appearance. Bishops should use discretion when giving such guidance to young men, taking into account their financial circumstances and maturity in the Church.

Last year, my son was benched because he wasn't wearing a white shirt and tie, after I showed this to the YM president. To his credit, afterward the YM president looked it up and acknowledged that I was right.

He's a fairly rigid thinker. Some people are especially rigid. I think church culture tends to promote them. They get things done and follow the rules.

That we need to quote manuals to each other to work out an issue like this is the root of all disconnection. We obey to play and unless the real Book of Scripture (CHI) says so ain't no one playing. Everyone is a rules lawyer in this d&d game.

How about the general distrust of facial hair on men? I suspect that the church is also fairly opposed to facial hair on women, but it's not a current issue as far as I have seen.

Brigaham, John, Wilford, Lorenzo, Joseph, Heber, and George all had excellent facial hair. From full on "Duck Dynasty" beards to Amish chin straps and well manicured goatees, the prophets of the LDS church had a solid century of BYU Honor Code violating faces. It's too bad that David O. McKay shaved his face and the succeeding prophets and apostles went full 1960s counter-counter-culture in the hair department. Going bald is still A-OK.

At the risk of further outing myself, I can state that I am a cast member of the 2018 Mesa Temple Easter Pageant. Seriously, I will be on stage nightly in the last half of March 2018 letting my Christian Flag Fly. I'm in this picture straight from church headquarters:



Leaving aside the hilarious circumstances that put me in the cast, I do have a beard and wil not be trimming or shaving until Easter (April 1). All the men are encouraged to grow a beard with the exception of men playing angels and guy portraying Adam. Apostles, Pharisees, Saducees, temple priests and the Savior of the World must have a beard. If you cannot, due to employment requirements (or inability to grow one), you will be given a prosthetic beard applied nightly.

Among the people that are not allowed to wear beards are current temple workers in the Mesa temple. Seriously, the actual Pharisees are telling the fake Pharisees that they cannot grow a beard even for the biggest missionary outreach that the the church has in Arizona. A friend of mine is in a stake presidency and had to get permission to grow a beard from the stake president. One guy playing one of the Twelve Disciples of Jesus was also a bishop in Mesa. He had to get permission from his stake president for his beard then went back to missionary clean shaven immediately after the last performance.

When did this policy somehow become elevated to doctrine? (Answer: BYU President Ernie Wilkinson hated hippies. Seriously.) This is just as silly as the unfounded, unsupported, non-doctrinal ban on caffeinated soft drinks.