If it was up to you to decide which doctrines and cultural practices were essential and which ones could be done away with, what would make your short list?
Church Essentials
60 thoughts on “Church Essentials”
Comments are closed.
Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues.
Unnecessary- White Shirts at sacrament meeting.
I thought I’d get that out of the way for you. :)
Coffee and tea in the WofW – looks so good and can’t be any worse for you than Twinkies!
The three hour block of meetings or at least do away with the Sunday School hour.
I’d bring back whiskey, cigars, coloured shirts, tattoos and facial hair. Oh and above all, Lipton’s Ice Tea. I so miss that stuff.
To keep for sure: frequent prayer, Family Home Evening, and singing.
I’d drop Jello Salad.
I have to agree with pewsitter on the Sunday School block. I’d also like to see more Protestant hymns. We were in a United Church sanctuary on Friday, and I was amazed at not only the size of their hymnals, but how few hymns I recognised in there.
Doctrines to keep: Eternal human potential and eternal marriage. Literal resurrection and Jesus the messiah. Everything else could be optional (though many doctrines flow from these, and would need to be kept as a result.)
What to lose? Garments. Biblical literalism. And I sure as heck wouldn’t miss the word of wisdom.
Of course it isn’t up to me. That’s probably a good thing for all concerned.
I can’t believe anyone hasn’t recommended the removal of having to attend a specific ward based on geography.
I hear more people complain about people in their wards, or how much they miss people from their old wards.
I know it might be tough administratively, but if given the choice wouldn’t you like to be able to choose where you attend?
Well it’s not always going to be perfect in each ward, but I wouldn’t suggest changing those rules. There needs to be some organisation.
Actually Rick, I like that one. People do it anyway, just not ‘officially’. It would be an easy way for the stake leadership to see which wards have problems by looking at attendance.
I would turf home teaching and compress the block schedule to about an hour and a half. 40 minutes for Sacrament meeting and 40 minutes for Sunday School / Priesthood or Relief Society. You could have priesthood on the first sunday of the month and sunday school the rest of the times.
For sacrament, you could shorten it to have just one speaker and keep it to 40 minutes.
Scouts and all like programs should go as well. This isn’t 1886 where we need something to do in our spare time. We’ve got pleanty to keep us busy.
Church should be a place to go to get supplimental spirituality, not a social life.
I would propose that the bishopric be selected for each ward and assigned by the stake presidency but the members attendance not be mandatory based on geographic boundaries.
I think that would naturally allow for people to attend a ward that has a bishop they get along with – be it liberal or conservative. ;)
I would also do away with the (pretty much) mandatory attendance of youth programs. Young people have very full schedules already – it seems too forced to make them have required associations with other member kids.
I don’t quite grasp how we’re supposed to decide whether a doctrine is essential. If it’s doctrine, it comes from God. He had a reason for giving it, though we may not know what his reasons are.
At the same time, rick, that solution would naturally result in some rather large wards.
I guarantee if I had a choice (not that anyone’s forcing me now), I would attend at the building nearest me and/or a ward where there is little demand on fast offering resources.
Ltbugaf,
That’s a valid opinion. You’re free to say ‘Keep it all’.
However, I would suggest that much of what you consider ‘Doctrine’ may fall under some of the gray areas outlined in the following reference:
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=970af549db852110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
True enough, but I think you would be able to select individuals in the bishopric who could deal with the load associated with a large ward.
I think an equilibrium would eventually be reached.
…and would it be bad to have some very large wards and others smaller? I can see upsides to both, personally.
Well, then Monson couldn’t brag about being a young bishop with over 1100 members in his ward.
… if he was really good he could have 6000 members in his ward.
I guess what I don’t like about the topic of the thread is that it seems to invite us to opine about what the Apostles of Jesus Christ who lead the Church would do if only they were as clever as we are. And I think that smacks of astonishing arrogance.
And by the way, I don’t think I’ve ever heard President Monson brag about anything. He just tells stories to illustrate points.
JM, re: comment 12—You asked which doctrines would be kept and which would be done away. So I’m confused now that you respond by saying some of the doctrines aren’t really doctrines. I’m already presuming that your question addresses only those doctrines that are doctrines (if that’s not being too redundant for present purposes). If it is doctrine, as your question presumes it is, then I don’t see how we can afford to jettison it as being nonessential.
On the other hand, I can also see that there are certain points of doctrine which may not be essential in this life for our salvation: For example, the Doctrine & Covenants tells us that Adam-Ondi-Ahman was located in what is today Missouri. That surely seems to be doctrine, but as far as I can tell, we’d be just as able to achieve exaltation through Christ’s atonement if we didn’t know it.
Well, if you don’t like the thread, you don’t have to read it or participate!
I’m betting that you just can’t ignore it though… right?
Often the Monson Story Hour is a cleverly disguised brag session.
…which of course leads back to the point I made before: Sure, I can’t see any necessity for that doctrine, but since God chose to reveal it, who am I to argue that it’s not essential? He usually has reasons we can’t see.
Hope #19 wasn’t confusing; it was meant to come immediately after #17.
Really? Your mind-reading powers must be astonishingly well developed for you to reach this conclusion. Congratulations!
I don’t participate because I have to. I participate because I care about the topic. The fact that I’m not obligated to comment has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of my criticism. I think it’s a bad idea to say, “If the Prophet just knew what he was doing as well as I do, he’d start doing X and stop doing Y.”
The only one who has said that so far is you, unless you too are now a mind reader. You’re assuming that is the intent of the thread.
Maybe you should re-read the intro that I wrote. It doesn’t say anything like what you suggest. It doesn’t give any motives, just a hypothetical… if you were the one calling the shots and you were able to make changes to things, what would you keep and what would you throw away. Nothing more, nothing less.
Maybe you don’t get hypothetical?
A quick hop over to dictionary.reference.com might enlighten you.
JM, I do understand that your question is hypothetical. Unless I’m mistaken, you’re asking us to consider what doctrines, as well as practices, we would do away with if we led the Church, or perhaps if we were in some imaginary way in charge of the world. That seems harmless enough. But can you see why I think it leads to something else? When we start identifying what we would change, aren’t we identifying what we think ought to change? And if we’re doing that, aren’t we also thinking about what is wrong with the way the Lord’s anointed leaders are leading the Church, and how our way would be better?
I don’t think that’s probably what you intended, but I can’t really say for sure. When I see how carelessly you call President Monson a braggart, I have to wonder if your purpose is to tear other leaders down as well.
There must be an ad hominem berry patch out there in left field. You should stay away from those. They lead to a bad case of fallacious argumentitum.
I can’t see why it leads you to think something else. Are you suggesting that everyone draws the same conclusions you do? Or do you just wish they would?
If you are afraid of having your mormon bubble popped, maybe you should stay away from sharp objects?
People can, do, and will have legitimate concerns with gospel principles, practices, and doctrines. The first step to resolving any concern is identifying it. If you were really so concerned with everyone’s spiritual welfare, perhaps you would spend more time seeking first to understand, then to be understood. The only fruit I see dropping from your tree is the self righteous, jumping to conclusion kind.
Do you have some deep seeded insecurity about anything that challenges your perception of your faith? Is it so weak that you can’t walk a mile in someone elses shoes and see things from their perspective?
Your approach to any commenting seems to be like the example in the old Missionary Guide. The one where the eye doctor neglects to listen to his patiend and examin his eyes. All he says is “Here, take these glasses, they’ve helped me over the years, they should work for you too.”
What is it about our church culture that turns people into a self righteous a$$? I’m ashamed to admit it, but I use to be one of them. I don’t know what it is, but if we can identify what it is, that’s probably the first thing I’d do away with if I had any say in the matter.
I’m sorry you believe all these things of me. I don’t know what, in the thread above, leads you to such conclusions. I hope you’ll take your own advice about ad hominem attacks.
JM, do you really not think it’s reasonable to make any connection between thinking about what I would change about the Church, and thinking that my way is better than the Prophet’s way?
So ltbugaf, you are saying that the root of hubris is considering the available options?
I mean it’s a hypothetical.
It’s not like JM’s starting some sort of revolutionary movement…
I know he’s not starting a revolution. There are already lots of people, in and out of the Church, who think their way to run the Church should be run are more correct than the way the Brethren are doing it. I’m just disagreeing with that way of thinking. I think Prophets are better at this than the rest of us, even though they are human and fallible.
Oof. That’s what I get for editing and not proofreading before I hit the button. Let’s try that sentence again: “There are already lots of people who thinnk their way to run the Church is more correct than the way the Brethren are doing it.”
So the main concern is that a member is thinking they could do the job better than the prophet?
rick,
I think you could shorten that to:
“So the main concern is that a member is thinking “
Rick: I suppose you could say it that way, if you like. Part of sustaining a prophet seer and revelator is accepting him as a guide. Constant second-guessing doesn’t strike me as sustaining. I do think it’s arrogant to presume to have a greater understanding of God’s will than God’s prophet has.
JM: I think you already know that what you said in comment 31 isn’t true. I think you also know there’s a difference between thinking for oneself and setting oneself above the prophet. And I think you also know some of the reasons I consider it wrong to speak evil of President Monson, as you have chosen to do here. I usually expect a much more thoughtful and reasonable approach from you than the one you’ve shown in comments 24 and 31. I know from experience that both your mind and your soul are better than that.
I don’t see it as second guessing AT ALL to say “gee, wouldn’t it be nice to bag garments?” I don’t think any of us have said the church SHOULD change anything. We all have our things we like and things we don’t. Apparently, ltbugaf, you think it’s terrible if we say we don’t like something the church does. Fortunately, sustaining our leaders as prophets, seers and revelators doesn’t mean we have to love the three-hour block, even if it IS inspired – we just have to live with it. Lots of women didn’t love polygamy, but they lived it anyway. Didn’t make them ark-steadiers that they talked about how hard it was.
Quit looking for critics here. There aren’t any. We’re just having a friendly conversation.
Yeesh.
ltbugaf,
There is no way to judge what you may or may not be thinking as true or false. All I can do is surmise based on how you portray yourself through your postings online.
I like to believe I know the difference you point out in your post. However, I don’t believe you know the difference.
You may want to lower your expectations regarding me or you may find yourself continually disappointed.
With, ‘I’m not sure we teach that’ Hinckley currently at the helm, I’m afraid, I’ve heard plenty of second guessing by members.
I certainly don’t second guess him since he has no bearing on how I live my life. I’m only passing on the sentiment of the members with whom I have conversed.
Of course, the comment you’re referring to by President Hinckley was perfectly accurate: We have only a piece of poetry by an apostle, no scripture or any other revelation, indicating anything about what God may have been before he was what he is now. We don’t cover that topic in any of our curricula. We don’t teach it. It’s a conclusion drawn by a particular leader, which may very well be true. But that doesn’t mean we “teach it.”
I’m sorry, but I just can’t buy that when I read comments like this one:
…or this one:
ltbugaf,
We do teach this. I hear this ‘doctrine’ at least every other month in Sunday school or priesthood.
It may not be official, or proper, or correct, but we do teach it.
That’s the biggest whopper of a mistake I’ve ever seen you make. Honestly, I can’t believe you’re trying to back out on the “man may become God doctrine” of the King Follet Discourse. Please, tell me you are not serious?
ltbugaf, you may ruffle feathers at times, but I’ve never known you to sweep aside doctrine like that.
Do you seriously not remember what the first discussion (back when they had “discussions”) was all about?
And I quote, the church’s great prophet, seer, and revelator, Joseph Smith Jr.:
To deny this is doctrine is to deny the very plan of salvation the church sells to every one of its new converts.
So whenever someone lets loose with some personal observation, unofficial teaching, improper precept or incorrect doctrine in a church meeting, it suddenly becomes a teaching of the Church? The “we” President Hinckley was referring to was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The teachings of that organization are an official and finite set. They’re not altered every week by whatever someone has to say during your Sunday School lesson. That’s what President Hinckley was saying, and he was right.
If Mike Wallace had asked, “Do any individual members of your church believe X?” then it might have been more correct to say yes. But when he asks if the Church teaches something, then the response should reflect what the Church’s official teachings are.
If it’s taught in our classrooms, it’s what we teach.
I sounds like we have leadership that has lost control of teaching in the church. Or, maybe they are inspired and want doctrines like this to be ‘unofficially’ taught, thus teaching them without needing to officially endorse them.
What do you think?
This is the advantage of no official endorsement.
The knowledge can be distributed by word of mouth or non-official publication. If the information is deemed to be sound, it can be pointed to as a shining example of the wisdom of the leaders. If not, it can be discounted as non-doctrinal or not official church policy.
If leaders were actually give official sanction to the directive it would not allow for the wiggle room present in the preceding example and may allow for non-faith-promoting sentiments from the membership.
For a faith with a living prophet, I am constantly amazed at how very little actually comes officially from the mouthpiece of the Lord every year.
How can this surprise you when your position is that there is no such thing as a Lord to give revelations and no such thing as a true Prophet to receive them?
Let me rephrase for the obtuse:
For a faith who claims to be true and with a living prophet, I am constantly amazed at how very little actually comes officially from the mouthpiece of the Lord every year, assuming I am incorrect in my personal beliefs that there is no God and that the faithful are essentially deluded; although that should have absolutely no bearing on the amount of information the prophet would be receiving if he were correct and I was not.
Why is it amazing that the Prophet doesn’t lay down new doctrines frequently? It seems to me that the doctrines already given usually answer the challenges we face. It also seems to me that we haven’t mastered obedience to the material we’ve already been given; it’s not obvious to me that God needs to give us new stuff.
Are you telling me that God only dispenses truth in bite-sized portions and only once the current information is being obeyed?
Given that scenario, there’s no good reason for revelations of any sort any time anywhere.
I think there’s an adequate answer to both your questions in 2 Nephi 28:30, and D&C 98:11-12
As for your conclusion that God has no good reason to give revelations, I guess I’ll just trust His judgment over yours.
Re: Comment 39
Jeff, I mostly agree with you. I think there is much stronger support for this idea, or doctrine, than I said. I’d kind of forgotten some of the content of the Follett Discourse.
I guess if rick wants to know why President Hinckley said what he said, he’ll have to write and ask him.
…however, I have no memory of any missionary discussion (or lesson, presentation, or whatever synonym you prefer) ever teaching anything about the pre-Godhood life of God.
When did we start talking about missionaries?