Conference tecrus::mormonism

================================================================================
Note 201.7                Doctrinal Questions about God                   7 of 7
STING::PERM "Kevin R. Ossler"                        98 lines  12-JAN-1989 16:00
                            -< A Mormon's reply... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: Note 201.6 ABE::STARIN  

Hi, Mark, 

First off, welcome to the conference. I'd be glad to offer some 
thoughts about your entry.

>    I told my fellow
>    DECie, what you appear to have is a white male-dominated, extremely
>    hierarchical theocracy that supports conformity over individuality.

When I read this, I was thinking about the Relief Society President in 
our local ward (The Relief Society is the women's organization that 
parallels the priesthood (men's) organization in a lot of ways). If you 
told *her* the above, you had best be wearing your asbestos underwear 
when you do it.  :-)

In other words, there are huge numbers of women members who hardly 
subscribe to the idea that they are dominated - in or out of the 
Church - by men.

As for the 'white' part, the Church is undergoing great change. There 
are about 7 million members, of which about 4 million are in the US, 
and about 3 million are outside the US. That 3 million number is 
expected to double in the next ten years. The Church is now, and will 
become increasingly so, an international Church. Whites will cease to 
dominate eventually. But of course white-domination is our history,
which should be unsurprising in a previously Utah-focused Church. 

>    If I wanted hierarchy, I would have stayed a Catholic.
    
Me too. I used to be Catholic as well. It took a lot of convincing for 
me to believe that any hierarchy is different from the Catholic 
version, or any other. However, as I prayed and pondered on whether 
these people were in fact inspired, and as I came to realize through 
study of the Scriptures that this Church does in fact fit the Biblical 
model for organization, it was revealed to me that this hierarchy is 
different; indeed, unique.

>    2. For traditional Congregationalists, there is no doctrine but the
>    Bible and each individual is called by God to read the Bible
>    and understand it as the Spirit moves him/her.
    
A lot has been said in this conference about the exclusivity of the
Bible as Scripture, and I would urge you to explore some of it. 

We believe that God does not choose to limit himself to one book, but
that He has spoken to his children in every age through honest-to-
goodness prophets, who have written down what they have learned, which 
writings became Scripture. The Bible is simply an example of this.
The Book of Mormon is another example, and is also the Word of God. 

By all means read the Bible, and ask the Spirit to help you understand 
it. But I would challenge you that if you do the same with your newly 
acquired Book of Mormon, the Spirit will bear witness to you of its 
divinity as well (See Moroni 10:3-5).

>    3. I also said I had a big problem with the Godhead doctrine. There
>    is ONLY ONE God - not three, not two, ONE. 

Again, a zillion entries have been made here about the Godhead, many 
of which explain Mormon beliefs more eloquently than I could do. I 
would simply add that if you approach the Scriptures with the idea 
that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost could be 
distinct personages yet one in purpose, you will see a lot of 
Scriptural passages make a lot more sense.

For example, when Jesus taught us to pray, saying "Our Father, who art 
in Heaven..." was He speaking to himself? Was He in Heaven at the same 
time He was on earth? And when he was in the Garden, and asked Father 
to take this cup, and finally said, "Not my will but your will be 
done," was He in conflict with himself?

I suppose you could explain such passages with some kind of 
metaphysical rationalization. But the truth is much more plain and 
much more obvious. Jesus was speaking to his Father, a distinct
entity, who was and is in heaven. 

>    4. Finally, I asked him to square what I perceived to be the
>    authoritarian nature of the LDS and the church's support for things
>    American with the individual liberties granted under the Declaration
>    of Independence and the Constitution. My impression was that he
>    couldn't.
    
I'm not sure I can either, because I don't see where the conflict is. 
I choose to follow my Church's leadership, which choice I make freely 
of my own will, which is my right under the Constitution. And thank 
God we do have the Constitution and the laws which allow us each to
worship God accoring to the dictates of our own conscience. Which
right, I am happy to acknowledge, accords to everyone. You and me
both. Wherein lies the conflict?

Again, welcome to the conference; I'd be glad to elaborate on anything 
you might want to get into - assuming I haven't put you to sleep 
already! ;-)

A brother in Christ,
/kevin

Re .1

>In other words, there are huge numbers of women members who hardly 
>subscribe to the idea that they are dominated - in or out of the 
>Church - by men.

I agree, Kevin, that many of the women in the church don't feel dominated
by the Priesthood, but there are many women who do.  This was one of the
problems Sonja Johnson had, and for those women it is a real problem.

The Church teaches that the husband is the head of the home.  It teaches that
(in the general case) he should be the bread-winner and the wife the home maker.
Many women have problems accepting and adjusting to this, especially with
the emphasis in society today (in the USA at least) of equality between the
sexes.

We hear a lot of talk among members about the wife supporting her husband in
his church callings, but we don't hear much said about the husband supporting
her in her callings.  This support has to go both ways.

What is really bad is when you have a Priesthood holder who really does
dominate his wife in an unrighteous way!  I have a friend in Arizona who
was determined that his wife would not work - she wanted to but he wouldn't
let her.  She wanted to, and my wife and I feel needed to, because he was a
self-employed (often un-employed) tradesman and wasn't providing enough 
income for his family; the wife needed the security of a guaranteed minimum
income and was willing to work to provide that base.

I think I'm getting onto a soap box and had better stop.

Allen

>    We hear a lot of talk among members about the wife supporting her husband in
>his church callings, but we don't hear much said about the husband supporting
>her in her callings.  This support has to go both ways.
 
    I agree.  My wife is a counselor in the primary and I the membership
    clerk.  Her calling requires her to be in primary on Sunday and
    I get to tend to our daughter's needs.  On the other hand, my calling
    requires me to put in hours at church after the meetings and during
    the week.  There is no way we could do both if we did not help each
    other and let the other one go to meetings, etc.
    
    scott

    Yup.  The support has to go both ways.  If it didn't, I'd probably
    be sleeping on the couch most nights ... ;-)
    
    Steve

    Re: Note 201.6 by ABE::STARIN

    Hi Mark,
    
    Welcome to the conference!

    Note: I started writing this before Kevin's response, and it is
    quite similar, but I decided to post it anyway...
        
>   what you appear to have is a white male-dominated, extremely
>   hierarchical theocracy that supports conformity over individuality.

>   For traditional Congregationalists, there is no doctrine but the
>   Bible and each individual is called by God to read the Bible
>   and understand it as the Spirit moves him/her.

    Without exception, the Bible was written by white males, so I guess you
    could say the Bible is white male-dominated, also :^). Actually, the
    highest rate of church growth is in Latin American and Asian nations.
    The LDS church is led in those countries by local people. We are also
    seeing remarkable growth rates in Africa. 
    
    The church spoken of in the New Testament was a hierarchical theocracy.
    It was lead by the central authority of the Apostles, who were the
    foundation, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone of the church. We
    claim to have the same organization as the original church had. 
    
>   I also said I had a big problem with the Godhead doctrine. There
>   is ONLY ONE God - not three, not two, ONE. True the Trinity (as
>   a doctrine) is only hinted at in the Scriptures, but the only
>   personification of God that I know of (according to my faith) was
>   Jesus Christ. 
    
    A few of questions for you. Who did Christ pray to, as he suffered in
    Gethsemane? Did he pray to himself? As Stephen was stoned, he saw Jesus
    standing on the right hand of God. Was Jesus standing on his own right
    hand? At the baptism of Jesus and on the Mount of Transfiguration there
    was a voice from heaven saying "This is My Beloved Son". Was Jesus
    casting his own voice and bearing witness of himself? Jesus said that
    his doctrine was not his, but was given to him by his Father. If it was
    not his, then how could it be his Father's, if he and his Father are
    the same person? Christ prayed that his disciples would be one, as he
    and his Father were one. Did he not mean united in purpose, rather than
    in substance? How could the disciples become united in substance? 
    
>   Finally, I asked him to square what I perceived to be the
>   authoritarian nature of the LDS and the church's support for things
>   American with the individual liberties granted under the Declaration
>   of Independence and the Constitution. My impression was that he
>   couldn't.
                                               
    I'm not sure I know what you mean by this. The church does not take
    away a person's liberty to make choices, but choices do have their
    natural consequences. The church attempts to teach its members correct
    principles, and to let them govern themselves. If they choose to abide
    by incorrect principles, then they receive the natural consequences. If
    they abide by correct principles then they will receive their just
    rewards. 

    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich

    I would like to add my 2 cents about the feeling of Mormon hierarcy
    and authority an outsider may perceive.  I, too, am an ex-Catholic
    and chomped at the bit when it came to Catholic authority.  So,
    I do understand references to a rigid hierarchy.  Sometimes I see
    parallels between the Catholics and the MOrmons in this regard.
    
    However, in the 1970s I worked for the Church in the Office of the
    Presiding Bishopric, which office deals with the more temporal
    affairs of the Church, i.e. finances, membership issues, record
    keeping, administrative policies and procedures.
    
    During that time we would have many inquiries from Church wards
    and stakes about the implementation of certain policies and procedures
    and the possibility of not adhering to a given method.
    
    In most cases as I prepared replies for the Presiding Bishop's
    signature or replied myself I had to follow 2 rules:
    
    1. With kindness, love and gentleness recommend adherence to the
       standard procedure.
    2. Above all recognize that the Bishop and the Stake President are the
       final authority for their stewardships/areas.
    
    I say in most cases because obviously there are Church procedures
    that must be followed without any deviation, but these are few.
    
    The bottom line is that there were wards, stakes, and branches that
    chose a different procedure to follow than the one recommended.
    In some cases these procedures were either better for their specific
    situation or just a better procedure overall.  
    
    So, I got a close up view of how the "Church hierarchy" works and
    I know that it embodies the Savior's admonition for "feeding his
    sheep" in a loving and kind manner.  I am now a Stake High Councilman
    and can view the workings of this hierarchy at the Stake level.
     And I see the same thing happening.  The Stake President leads,
    but always asking for input, advice and counsel every step of the
    way.
    
    Non-members reading this NOTES FILE might like to know that one
    of the most fundamentally important principles to Mormonism is the
    one of free will.  No where is anyone, member or not, coerced to
    do anything he or she has not freely chosen to do.  It is solely
    up to the individual to choose whether to believe, to follow or
    not to.
    
    I hope this note clarifies a little bit the concept of hierary in Mormonism.
    The anti-Mormon propaganda (i.e. The God Makers) will tell you
    differently, but don't swallow it.
    
    Paul
    

    Well put, Paul!  :-)
    
    Steve

Yes, very well put. Thank you for that. A very helpful perspective.

Regards,
/kevin

    Thank you for all the responses. 
    
    I've often wondered about the implied
    duality of Christ. If you take the position that he was only a divinely
    inspired Rabbi who felt that he had a special relationship with
    his Father in heaven (in the sense that God is the Father of all
    mankind), then you can be accused of not being a Christian. On the
    other hand, if you argue that Jesus was God in human form (so as
    not to violate the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Have Any False Gods
    Before Me") you run into the problem of "Was Jesus talking to himself?"
    Finally, if you say the way around both of those is that Jesus,
    God, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct entities yet one in
    the same, you're back to being accused of being a polytheist.
    
    The issue certainly poses some interesting questions!
    
    On whether authoritarian churches established in a free country can
    square their doctrines with the separation of church and state doctrine
    of the US Constitution, I often pose the same question I posed to
    this conference to my fellow political conservatives who happen
    to be Catholic. That is, how is it you can subscribe to the belief
    of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" when you belong
    to a church that tells you to "pray, pay, and obey"? Don't you feel
    like outsiders in your own country when you see other free men and
    women enjoying not only secular but religous freedom as well?
    
    Their response usually is "well, I'm free to speak up in my church
    and voice my opinions." To which I reply, "But if you speak up to
    loudly and violate the edicts of the Vatican you are history. So
    in effect you have two options: play the game and hope for some
    kind of change some time in the future OR leave. Some freedom!"
    
    Oh well, more food for thought.
    
    Regards,
    
    Mark

    Maybe you could list some freedoms you think others have that I
    might be missing?  Then I could tell you how I feel about that.
    I can't think of any.  But I can think of a few that I might enjoy
    that some might not.
              
    rich allen

RE: < Note 202.9 by CSSPRT::STARIN >

If one limits oneself to just one portion of Scripture, i.e. the 
Bible, then one will inevitably have "interesting questions" such as 
those you've described. If, however, one accepts the Book of Mormon, 
the D&C, etc. as Scripture also, then these questions can be resolved.

It is my personal belief that God never intended to be such a mystery 
to His children. I believe one of the important necessities of the 
Book of Mormon is to help resolve these questions so that we *can* 
understand our Father in Heaven better, so that we *can* understand 
the mission of our Savior, and so that we *can* understand how the 
Holy Ghost can help, guide, and comfort us. If those things are not 
understandable, then as far as we're concerned, they might as well not
exist! 

A brother in Christ,
/kevin

I thought I would post some pointers to note 4 for those who may not have
read them, concerning the Mormon concept of God.

    4.1   The Godhead
    4.2   The Form of God
    4.13  The Doctrine of the Trinity

Those replies give a detailed Biblical discussion of Deity.

Allen

RE: Note 202.9 CSSPRT::STARIN 

>    how is it you can subscribe to the belief
>    of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" when you belong
>    to a church that tells you to "pray, pay, and obey"? 

In the United States, we lustily sneer at the edicts of our 
governments. We have that right because we know and act on the
assumption that the people are greater than the government; that it is
We The People who give government its power in the first place. 

But in the kingdom of God, the subjects are not greater than the 
ruler. The ruler is God, and has a perfect right to issue His edicts 
and commandments, and we do not have the right to quibble. If we 
really believe in God, then we should be willing to accord him this 
right.

Now if in fact a Church exists on the earth which was personally
established by Jesus Christ, was given its *authority* by Him, and is
personally directed by Him in this day, then its edicts are ignored at
great peril. 

The problem you have with the Catholic church is that you feel its
hierarchy does not have this authority. But we who are Latter-day 
Saints contend that our Church *does* have that authority, which makes 
all the difference in the world. We assert that the our hierarchy is 
the *legitimate* authority as established by Jesus Christ himself.

If when I was investigating the Church I thought that it was merely
the bishop who was telling me to pray, pay, and obey, I would have
never have joined. But having had a witness directly from the Holy
Ghost about these things, both then and now, I know what things I
should be doing, and they happen to be congruent with what the Church
teaches. 

More to follow.

/kevin

RE: Note 202.9 CSSPRT::STARIN 

>    Don't you feel 
>    like outsiders in your own country when you see other free men and 
>    women enjoying not only secular but religous freedom as well? 
    
"Religious freedom" in the sense that I am free to believe what I
want, even if it isn't true, is at least an oxymoron, and at best it
is unproductive. It is like saying "scientific freedom" includes the
right to believe that the earth is flat. Rebelling against someone 
who tells you that such a belief is untrue does not define freedom.

Even so, each of us has a right to be wrong, even in religious
matters. But lets not forget that there *is* a right and a wrong. Some
doctrine is correct and some is not. Either there *is* a God, or there
isn't. And if there is, and if He has revealed himself to us, then it
behooves us to find out about Him. On His terms, not ours. 

A brother in Christ,
/kevin