Blogger of Jared

73 Responses to “Orthodoxy”

I don’t understand your point. Which are you saying comes first, obedience or orthodoxy? Also, how do you determine orthodoxy?

Comment # 1 left by HP on April 20th, 2007

Personally, I don’t like the terms orthodoxy and heterodoxy, at least in terms of when they are applied to specifics. While useful in discussing generalities, when you boil it down to a single individual or a single situation, you are generally getting yourself in trouble.

Anyway, what I am really interested in is your definition of doxa. Strong’s has doxa or doxa meaning “dignity, glory(-ious), honour, praise, worship”

So Orthodoxy would be correct worship, not correct thought or teaching. I am interested in where you got thought and teaching.

Comment # 2 left by Matt W. on April 20th, 2007

HP, isnt it obvious? Orthodox = Connor.

Comment # 3 left by Kurt on April 20th, 2007

re-reading my comment, I did not mean to imply that you, Connor, were using the terms in poor judgment. I was just throwing out the first thought that I always think when I see these words. I do the same when I see the terms “conservative” and “liberal”.

And it says doxa or doxa because I was trying to use font tabs to put in the greek font. It didn’t work.

Shutting up now, and really interested in your thoughts on the difference between correct teaching, correct thought, and correct worship. (Or your correction if I am out of line in my reading of doxa)

Comment # 4 left by Matt W. on April 20th, 2007

I’m interested in defining Mormon orthodoxy. I’ve yet to see it done. There seems to be a deliberate ‘fuzzyness’ to exactly what ‘Right Belief’ entails, while there are very deliberate (but occasionally contradictory) guidelines to orthopraxy. I make no claims to either, and I remain confused… but happy. Otherwise there would be no sunstoners in the church.

Comment # 5 left by angrymormonlibearal on April 20th, 2007

HP,

Which are you saying comes first, obedience or orthodoxy?

Why does one need to come before the other?

Also, how do you determine orthodoxy?

Follow the Brethren.

Matt,

So Orthodoxy would be correct worship, not correct thought or teaching.

My understanding is that worship (action, doing) is more “orthopraxy” (as AML points out) where as the more abstraction teaching/thought/belief is orthodoxy. Suggestions for such a definition can be found here, here, and here.

Also, Matt, this gets into a larger discussion that you posted about concerning the impact and necessity of doctrine and teachings.

… [I’m] really interested in your thoughts on the difference between correct teaching, correct thought, and correct worship.

As I argued on your post, I think that correct worship can only be based upon correct teaching. Correct teaching leads to correct thought (for if we are not taught correct things, how can we know them? - Thus we see the precedence of Adam teaching his children God’s plan, and so on down to our own parents). Correct thought leads to the desire and ability to have correct practice and action. So, correct teaching -> correct thinking/belief -> correct action. Orthodoxy leads into orthopraxy. Faith leads into works.

Am I making any sense in how I see this?

Kurt,

HP, isnt it obvious? Orthodox = Connor.

Such an insightful comment, Kurt. I would expect no less from one such as yourself.

AML,

I’m interested in defining Mormon orthodoxy. I’ve yet to see it done.

I think it’s most easily defined as “that which is taught in the scriptures and by modern prophets”.

That being said, one should not be necessarily punished for misguided or incorrect belief, as Joseph argued:

I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believe as I please, it feels so good not to be trammeled. It don’t prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine. (Joseph Smith, via Quoty)

Comment # 6 left by Connor on April 20th, 2007

Connor: thanks for steering me aright. Darn that Strong’s! I really must find a better online source for evaluating the meaning of greek words. This would have really helped me here when I was discussing vs. 7…

In that case, while Correct Teaching is important, it is vital that we know that some topics or doctrines do not fall in the category of “teaching from God”, and thus are open to discussion. For example, I’d say the Lord has left us room on many topics to have different ideas without being either orthodox or heterodox. The challenge seems to be discerning which topics are open to evaluation, and which are not.

Comment # 7 left by Matt W. on April 20th, 2007

Handy, succinct and wholly relative.

Both what’s in the scriptures and what’s from the modern prophets is subject to various forms of supercessionism. Now LDS are much better at being consistent at this than the forms of Pentecostalism I’m fond of watching. We do have various folk orthodoxies and orthopraxies in the church as well as the broad net of official statements that hold the mixed bag of Mormons together.

I find it really difficult to impose orthodoxy in an LDS sense. Some have tried, and there are statements but for your BKP or BMcC I can raise you a Brown, a Lee, a Clark a Hunter or a Hinckley. Which is one of the reasons I stopped proof-texting…lol

Comment # 8 left by angrymormonlibearal on April 20th, 2007

Matt W.,
here is the Crosswalk lexicon’s entry for doxa, FWIW.

Connor,
You haven’t clarified your original post at all. In fact, you seem to believe that orthodoxy is necessary prior to obedience, according to what you say to Matt W. However, you yourself say that you determine orthodoxy by “following the Brethren,” which is more of a praxic than a doxic comment. In any case, the definition you later gave to AML was subtly different. “That which is taught in the scriptures and by modern prophets” is still a vague definition. Are you saying that which is taught in both sources and is in agreement in both sources? What do we do when two modern prophets interpret the same passage of scripture differently? Are there times when modern prophets are speaking “without the mantle” as it were and how do we tell? Things are much more complex than you are making them seem.

Comment # 9 left by HP on April 20th, 2007

Matt,

The challenge seems to be discerning which topics are open to evaluation, and which are not.

Well said. I agree with you that some subjects are more concrete than others.

AML,

Both what’s in the scriptures and what’s from the modern prophets is subject to various forms of supercessionism.

Does that nullify orthodoxy? When a prophet supercedes a teaching or commandment given by a previous one, wouldn’t orthodoxy simply shift? Aren’t we to always follow the living prophet and the commandments we receive from God through him? If so, then orthodoxy necessitates changing our own beliefs to be in harmony with whatever is communicated by the living prophet, otherwise our orthodoxy turns to heterodoxy by clinging to words of previous prophets.

HP,

In fact, you seem to believe that orthodoxy is necessary prior to obedience, according to what you say to Matt W.

Inasmuch as obedience is defined as an action, then yes. But I do believe that obedience is also a mindset based on a set of beliefs and teachings, which then equates it with ‘orthodoxy’ itself.

However, you yourself say that you determine orthodoxy by “following the Brethren,” which is more of a praxic than a doxic comment.

Again, “following” can mean either praxy or doxy, depending on the circumstance. Following Christ requires both thought/belief (faith) and action (works). So, really, both orthodoxy and orthopraxy are required, while one precedes the other in most cases.

What do we do when two modern prophets interpret the same passage of scripture differently?

Follow the current prophet. I really don’t think God will discredit or punish anybody for doing what the current prophet says, regardless of if that prophet is later found to be in error…

Are there times when modern prophets are speaking “without the mantle” as it were and how do we tell?

Over the pulpit? I doubt it. As per your second question, thank God for the Holy Ghost and the spirit of discernment!

Comment # 10 left by Connor on April 20th, 2007

Connor,

Follow the Brethren

By your own definition then, you are one of the leftists and secularists who shirk orthodoxy in favor of “radical, liberal practices”.

Surely you are aware of the council given repeatedly in general conference and occasionally in letters from the FP that we are not to participate in or advocate schemes that encourage people not to pay income tax. If we are to understand orthodoxy as you have defined it here, you are pretty far gone in apostacy, and you are taking others with you. But since you do not consider yourself to be apostate, obviously there is something wrong with your argument.

Comment # 11 left by Mark IV on April 20th, 2007

If we are to understand orthodoxy as you have defined it here, you are pretty far gone in apostacy, and you are taking others with you.

Now there’s a fallacious, unsubstantiated comment, Mark. When have I ever counseled or suggested to others that they not pay their income tax? You can sleep soundly tonight knowing that I did indeed file my taxes this year, just as I’ve done every other year I’ve been employed.

Nice try, though.

Comment # 12 left by Connor on April 20th, 2007

Well, there is that funny site you linked to, but a link isn’t necessarily an endorsement.

Connor, you seem to want your cake and eat it to here. What the brethren say over the pulpit is doctrine (except when it isn’t) and the spirit is the way to tell the difference (an experience that we can’t knowingly replicate in others). Further, I don’t understand your statement that obedience is a “mind-set.” Could you go into more detail with that? I don’t know of a precise way for people to judge another’s mind-set.

Comment # 13 left by HP on April 20th, 2007

Connor, I’m not sure why you single out those who seem to move to the religious left as the problem, since it is those who move to the religious right of the LDS mainstream and practice fundamentalist polygamy or in some other way follow one who they believe is receiving revelation from God (imagine that!) who are exed in short order, no questions asked. It doesn’t come through clearly in LDS rhetoric (not much does), but it’s clear that at least some within the hierarchy realize the danger is from the religious right of the LDS mainstream (already pretty far right all on its own), not from the religious left.

Comment # 14 left by Dave on April 20th, 2007

Connor, # 12,

Perhaps I misunderstood your intentions. Could you please clarify what your intentions were when you put the income tax offer post on your personal blog?

Comment # 15 left by Mark IV on April 20th, 2007

HP,

What the brethren say over the pulpit is doctrine (except when it isn’t) and the spirit is the way to tell the difference (an experience that we can’t knowingly replicate in others).

When is what the GAs say over the pulpit not considered doctrine?

My reference to the spirit of discernment was more pertaining to things that are said “unofficially”, i.e. not over the pulpit. If a GA writes a book and there’s something you disagree with contained therein, that’s a perfect example of the necessity of seeking a spiritual confirmation of its truthfulness (or lack thereof). And you’re right, we can’t replicate it in others. But I’ve never argued that we need to. We don’t need to scrutinize the orthodoxiness (cool word) of others in order to know what orthodoxy itself is.

Further, I don’t understand your statement that obedience is a “mind-set.”

Well, here’s how I see it. John Bytheway once gave a good talk to some youth saying that they can love their future spouses right now, by preparing themselves to be the right type of person that they would want to be married to. Likewise, we are taught that by deciding to be obedient to a commandment now, the decision will be easier in the future when we really are tested in our obedience. In that case, obedience begins to be somewhat of a mindset, to the point where I feel that I will obey whatever the prophet tells me to do. In such a situation, I’m not actually being obedient to any one lesson or commandment (because they haven’t yet been given), but I am readying myself to be obedient to them by having the right frame of mind.

Dave,

Connor, I’m not sure why you single out those who seem to move to the religious left as the problem, since it is those who move to the religious right of the LDS mainstream and practice fundamentalist polygamy or in some other way follow one who they believe is receiving revelation from God (imagine that!) who are exed in short order, no questions asked.

Umm, the fundamentalists are certainly not a case study in orthodoxy, as orthodoxy (as I argued in a previous comment) entails following the current prophet and changing your beliefs to fall in line, when necessary. Perhaps theirs might be labeled a sort of “extremist orthodoxy”, where, like the Jews, they cling to the teachings of a previous prophet and currently ignore the servants of God teaching them in their midst.

…but it’s clear that at least some within the hierarchy realize the danger is from the religious right of the LDS mainstream (already pretty far right all on its own), not from the religious left

My mom offered a comment along these lines over on my blog which said:

Satan likes to peel people off the left AND the right. It is my experience that those who cross the line of fanaticism first exhibit signs of “I know more than they do.” which they first apply to their peers and then they apply to the Church leadership.
Vigilance and humility are constantly necessary.

Any type of extremism is detrimental. Those who wander off of the strait and narrow can, in fact, go both to the “left” and the “right”.

Comment # 16 left by Connor on April 20th, 2007

This thread more and more is returning me to my original comment these terms “right”, “left”, “conservative”, “liberal”, “orthodox”, “heterodox” are bad words. They are bad words because to a “rightist”, no “leftist” idea can be a good idea, and vice versa. With that attitude, we would never achieve the power within the 13th article of faith.

Too often we assume that perceived homodoxy is orthodoxy, no matter which side of the road we may think we are on.

For what it’s worth, Obedience as a mind-set makes sense to me, since God has both taught that he will judge us by the intents of our hearts, and that we should not judge.

I do believe there are certain central things which are fundamentally orthodox within our church, to the point that I do believe our church is the “one true church”, but I don’t think it would be very useful to produce such a judging laundry list of my own devising here, after all, it is possibly completely situational to me and my experience, and I am perfectly willing to submit myself to God’s wisdom if I am wrong on any points. Until I get that wisdom though, I have to go with what I have.

Anyway, thanks Connor for the thought provoking post.

Comment # 17 left by Matt W. on April 20th, 2007

I don’t know about Connor, but for me, and many others, “Follow the Brethren” means trying to be in sync with pronouncements and guidance offered publicly by those we sustain as present-day prophets, seers and revelators, particularly as they express themselves in the most recent General Conference.

Thus, when faced with apparent contradictions between things that may have been said or written by past (or even present) prophets and the most recent statement on the issue made by President Hinckley, we tend to go with the latter.

For example, regarding evolution, although individual apostles and prophets have expressed widely differing views throughout the history of the Church, the most recent public statement I am aware of by President Hinckley (as reported in the Deseret News, January 19, 2006) is that in 2002President Gordon B. Hinckley was quoted as saying,


What the church requires is only belief “that Adam was the first man of what we would call the human race.” Scientists can speculate on the rest.

To me, that means that members may have all sorts of different opinions about the origin of the earth and of mankind and still be considered obedient and orthodox, as long as they accept the crucial point of Adam being “the first man of what we would call the human race.”

If President Hinckley, or a future prophet, issues further clarification on that subject, or any other, I’ll be happy to modify my views in whatever way necessary, without getting bothered by anything he, or other General Authorities, may have said previously.

If we say we are eager for more light and knowledge, we’d best be disposed to accept it gratefully when it comes, right?

Comment # 18 left by RoAnn on April 20th, 2007

Such an insightful comment, Kurt. I would expect no less from one such as yourself.

Connor, you, of course, consider yourself orthodox, don’t you? Forgive me for pointing out that you consider yourself to be on the right path, when others might question that. You sit there and say orthodoxy is the way, and others are out of the way. Great, we got Son of Jettboy here.

You see, Connor, while you are concerned with the orthodoxy of “teachings, practices, and doctrines”, the only thing Jesus requires is a godly walk. People like you love to talk and talk. But its works that count. If some “heterodox” on the Bloggernacle says X, Y, & Z on some esoteric doctrine, you know what? It doesnt matter. All that matters is what that person actually does in their daily walk, not their daily talk.

So, Connor, you can sit there and call others “heterodox” and condemn them for not toeing your doctrinal line, but it doesnt matter. Because in the Judgement, it is your walk that counts, and not your talk. Which is a good thing for all of us.

Also, the word “catholic” means “orthodox”, so geuss what? The Catholics think they are “orthodox” and that means mormons arent. So try that definition on for size.

Comment # 19 left by Kurt on April 20th, 2007

Mark,

Perhaps I misunderstood your intentions. Could you please clarify what your intentions were when you put the income tax offer post on your personal blog?

If you interpreted that post to be a “call to arms” for my readers to cease paying their income tax, then you’re putting far too many words into my (virtual) mouth.

What were my intentions? Simply to pass along the news of the “contest” this organization was holding for anybody interested.

Comment # 20 left by Connor on April 20th, 2007

Hugh Nibley defined “orthodox” as “without revelation.” He did so with rather good reason

Comment # 21 left by Nick Literski on April 20th, 2007

Kurt,

You see, Connor, while you are concerned with the orthodoxy of “teachings, practices, and doctrines”, the only thing Jesus requires is a godly walk. People like you love to talk and talk. But its works that count. If some “heterodox” on the Bloggernacle says X, Y, & Z on some esoteric doctrine, you know what? It doesnt matter. All that matters is what that person actually does in their daily walk, not their daily talk.

As I discussed with Matt, orthopraxy (your “godly walk” argument) must be based on orthodoxy. One cannot have a godly walk without knowing that God who is doing the walk. And as Matt also suggested, the Lor doth indeed look on the heart. Your works will only get you so far.

Also, the word “catholic” means “orthodox”…

Says who? Catholic stems from the Greek katholikos which means “universal”, or “with respect to the whole”, the modern definition of which being “all-embracing”. How is that equated perfect with “orthodox”, as you suggest?

Comment # 22 left by Connor on April 20th, 2007

Now I have to take a certain amount of umbrage with the idea that if we do exactly what the current prophet says we won’t be held accountable even if what he said was wrong. I’m thinking more of the praxis in this case, and to use the worst example, BY making miscegenation a death penalty offense.

Here’s an interesting contradiction, is obedience what God says or what God does to be God? IE, is ‘right/correct action’ a universal law or a contingent fiat? Please pull a Blake Ostler, we need 700 pages with footnotes…lol.

Comment # 23 left by angrymormonlibearal on April 20th, 2007

A few quick thoughts:

1. First, on the etymology of “orthodoxy,” GR doxa derives from the verb dokein, which means “to seem” but also “to think, suppose, imagine, expect.” So the most basic meaning of doxa is a notion (whether true or false), which finds flower in such meanings as an expectation, an opinion, a judgment, or in a more negative sense a mere opinion, and thus a conjecture, supposition, or a fancy, dream, vision. It can also mean the opinion which others have of one, and so estimation, reputation, credit, honor. And the more developed meaning of the word has to do with the external appearance of a thing, and thus its glory, splendor, effulgence. As it has come into English, orthodoxy has to do with right opinion.

2. I know it’s a bit of a cliche, but I think it’s true that Mormons are much more interested in orthopraxy than orthodoxy. An excellent illustration is the famous emendation by SWK of the words to I Am a Child of God from “teach me all that I must know” to “teach me all that I must do.”

3. As much as I love Elder Maxwell, I think I have to disagree with his view that orthodoxy used to be a favored notion that has fallen on hard times. I think it’s just the reverse; orthodoxy was not a common Mormon emphasis until the rise of Mormon neo-orthodoxy in the second half of the 20th century. One rarely sees references or allusions to orthodoxy in older Mormon literature; in fact, perhaps the most famous (in the pre-1990 temple endowment) is expressly negative in character.

4. One of the main reasons others deny that Mormons are Christian is what Stephen Robinson calls the doctrinal exclusion. Our opinions are not sufficiently orthodox to be in the club. I don’t have a very high opinion of such excluding orthodoxy.

5. I’ve always liked the observation that Mormon Doctrine is a pamphlet, not an encyclopedia. Since it is extremely difficult to define orthodoxy in a Mormon context, I’m not sure how helpful the concept is for faithful Mormons. We don’t really have a systematic theology; we focus more on community and service and a shared history and shared stories as the grounds for our faith.

Comment # 24 left by Kevin Barney on April 20th, 2007

AML,

So you do think that God would punish somebody for following the current prophet, despite what that prophet asks?

Comment # 25 left by Connor on April 20th, 2007

I think that what we rely on at the end of the day is important in determining how orthodox we are. If we are honestly basing our beliefs and actions on the scriptures and on modern day prophets as a whole then we can consider ourselves orthodox within the churhc. If we are basing our beliefs on something else and ignoring the scriptures we are not.

This will not solve every little detail of course. I thing orthodox may only make sence in general, and may lose some meaning when we get into specifics.

Comment # 26 left by Eric Nielson on April 20th, 2007

AML: I sure hope God get’s to drive something better than a fiat…

Seriously though, this brings up an interesting wrinkle, as there is:
1. What prophets say
2. What we think prophets say
3. What prophets mean
4. What we think prophets mean

and then on top of that the same iterations for our relationship with God. (composing 5-8, but I’m too lazy to write it out.)

Then we have to add in our social, situational, and genetic conditioning also, which all affect our ability to think and reason.

We end up with something like “Due to the people and environment around me, and related to my own ability to reason based on the cognitive ability I inherited from my mother and father, I think that the prophet means God means he judges us by the intents of our hears when God says such and such, according to what the prophet says, anyway. Of course, based on any of the conditions exhibited within your own life, you may draw a different meaning from the saying”

How fun would that be in the next fast and testimony meeting?

Comment # 27 left by Matt W. on April 20th, 2007

Connor,
I think that if you take the allegory of the olive tree or the stories of Abraham seriously, then there are places where it seems like God would like us to stand up to Him. Therefore it may not be a stretch to say that sometimes we may be meant to stand up to abuses of priesthood authority and so forth.

I now understand what you mean by the mindset and I would agree that I mindset that predisposes you to seek and do God’s will is important (which would include, I think, listening and following the counsel of his chosen representatives). I have a different term that I use for that mindset (so partly we were arguing semantics here). The thing is that orthodoxy, as you are using it, doesn’t appear to be so subjective that it could be reflected in an individual mindset; you seem to be using it as an objective standard to which we should conform ourselves. Am I misinterpreting?

Comment # 28 left by HP on April 20th, 2007

As I discussed with Matt, orthopraxy (your “godly walk” argument) must be based on orthodoxy. One cannot have a godly walk without knowing that God who is doing the walk. And as Matt also suggested, the Lor doth indeed look on the heart. Your works will only get you so far.

Wrong, Connor. A godly walk is not based upon obscure doctrines or even knowing that One True God. Sorry, but Paul annihilated that very same argument by the “orthodox” Pharisees who were saying the Gentiles could not be saved, cf. Romans 2:14. So you can stick your doctrinally-based definitions where they belong. For the doers of the Law shall be justified. Not the believers in the Law.

Says who? Catholic stems from the Greek katholikos which means “universal”, or “with respect to the whole”, the modern definition of which being “all-embracing”. How is that equated perfect with “orthodox”, as you suggest?

Connor, stop pretending you know Greek or anything like unto it. You are reading lexical sources. You had better cut it out before someone who actually knows Greek comes along and embarasses you.

As far as catholic=orthodox, take a look definition number 5 on this link:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orthodox

When the Roman Catholics use the term catholic, as in universal, they mean the universal church, the orthodox church, the one right one, the only true church. Just like we think we are the only true church. So forget about your petty word games, Connor. The Pharisees of Jesus’ time considered themselves orthodox and Jesus a heretical blasphemer againt Moses. Yet, he spoke the truth, contrary to the established “orthodoxy” of the time.

Comment # 29 left by Kurt on April 20th, 2007

Kurt,

You are completely ignoring all my previous comments wherein I argue that true orthodoxy requires following the modern prophet, including when statements and doctrines given by past prophets are superseded or changed. That would, then, nullify your ranting about the Phairsees and the like, as they refused to obey the prophets in their midst.

Comment # 30 left by Connor on April 20th, 2007

Kevin: My take on Elder Maxwell is more along the lines that orthodoxy “Correct Opinion” used to be easily understood and believed, but now often these opinions are challenged more and more as to whether they are actually correct or not. All of this from the perspective of within mormonism. And Personally, I think he is also talking from the perspective of within his lifetime…

Connor: (#25) It depends on why we followed the prophet. In some readings Cain was punished for sacraficing to God because of why he was sacrificing. You said it yourself, obedience is a mind-set.

Comment # 31 left by Matt W. on April 20th, 2007

You are completely ignoring all my previous comments wherein I argue that true orthodoxy requires following the modern prophet, including when statements and doctrines given by past prophets are superseded or changed. That would, then, nullify your ranting about the Phairsees and the like, as they refused to obey the prophets in their midst.

Connor, you are completely ignoring my comments wherein I point out that you do not need to follow the modern prophet, just like Paul said you dont. That would, then, nullify your ranting about needing to follow the modern prophets and all other doctrinally-based arguments.

Connor, did you even bother to read Romans 2:14? You might want to, since it totally contradicts everything you are saying, in its entirety. But, hey, what do you care what the Scriptures say, right? As long as you feel safe, smug and secure in your knowledge that you, and not the Bloggernacle, are in the right path.

Comment # 32 left by Kurt on April 20th, 2007

Connor, you are completely ignoring my comments wherein I point out that you do not need to follow the modern prophet, just like Paul said you dont.

So are you arguing, Kurt, that to be on the strait and narrow path, one need not following the living prophet? That is completely antithetical to the gospel, and is the main reason we have fundamenalist groups today, the Pharisees in Jesus’ time, and others throughout history who cling to previous prophets and claim orthodoxy, while disregarding the voice of the current prophet.

But, hey, what do you care what the Scriptures say, right? As long as you feel safe, smug and secure in your knowledge that you, and not the Bloggernacle, are in the right path.

Does your “godly walk”, Kurt, entail refraining from acting like a jerk?

Comment # 33 left by Connor on April 20th, 2007

So are you arguing, Kurt, that to be on the strait and narrow path, one need not following the living prophet? That is completely antithetical to the gospel, and is the main reason we have fundamenalist groups today, the Pharisees in Jesus’ time, and others throughout history who cling to previous prophets and claim orthodoxy, while disregarding the voice of the current prophet.

It is absolutely not antithetical to the gospel. Did you even read Romans 2? Go and read what it says and then engage your brain. It says that living the Law without knowing the Law results in the Gentiles being justifies. Paul is arguing against precisely the kind of intellectual elitism you are arguing in favor of. You hold up “orthodoxy” as “on the straight and narrow”, when that is not what it means at all. You are arguing for an intellectual ascent, that some element of knowledge is essential, you must know something someone else doesnt. Paul rejects that, and so does Jesus when he argues against the Pharisees. It is not in knowing the Law, it is in doing the Law. And Gentiles who know not the Law, but live the Law without knowing it, are justified.

So, Connor, what it boils down to is it is not a matter of professed belief, but a matter of what you do. Period. No intellectual ascent required. If someone who has never heard the modern prophets lives what they teach, then they will be justified the same as someone who has heard them and lives them. Get it? So you can kiss your “orthodox” thing good bye. It isn’t scriptural.

Does your “godly walk”, Kurt, entail refraining from acting like a jerk?

Connor, if you could only taste the irony in you asking such a question.

Comment # 34 left by Kurt on April 20th, 2007

So, Connor, what it boils down to is it is not a matter of professed belief, but a matter of what you do.

Kurt, this has already been addressed in previous comments where I argued that teaching -> believing -> action.

Of course those who don’t know the gospel will not be held accountable for the actions they don’t know are wrong. Sins both of commission and omission that stem from gospel ignorance will not be held to their charge, as they were never taught what is necessary to be on the strait and narrow path.

But for those of us who do have the gospel, Elder Maxwell teaches us in the quote I cite that orthodoxy demands we stay on the strait and narrow. Such a course of action requires that we follow our leader, the prophet. That flies in the face of your argument at we don’t have to follow the modern prophet.

So you can kiss your “orthodox” thing good bye. It isn’t scriptural.

Elder Maxwell’s quote is as good as scripture to me. Or are you rebutting everything that he said as well?

Connor, if you could only taste the irony in you asking such a question.

Disagreement is one thing, Kurt. Acting like a jerk is another. Your tone, as others would most likely agree, has been condescending and rude. I don’t mind that you think I’m wrong, but please phrase your arguments without the barbs and jeers.

Comment # 35 left by Connor on April 20th, 2007

This is quite the interesting blog indeed! I remember once a short time ago when i was invited to post here on the BOJ and I was introduced as being “hetrodox”. I find it quite humerous that we have all of these words and phrases to separate and distinguish people into classes and at the same time do not even know the correct definitions of the words or phrases!

This blog is what I like to call an excersize in intellectualism (and don’t ask what I mean by that!) in seeing how one can define something into something completely confusing! Who cares what is “orthodox” in the church- no one cares, and why? Because frankly, no one even knows how to use the term in our religion! When we speak in our church we use similar but more logical words such as “doctrine” or “belief”. So in all reality, what this post should really be called is “What is Mormon doctrine”. One could squabble all week long on what the “root translation” of orthodoxy means and never get to the real point of defining what is mormon doctrine and what is not!

Comment # 36 left by Rob Osborn on April 20th, 2007

Connor,

Fair enough. You have my apologies. I had interpreted that post and the accompanying link as an invitation to join the “income tax is unconstitutional’ crowd. I still think that is a reasonable interpretation, but you certainly knew what you were thinking better than I.

Comment # 37 left by Mark IV on April 20th, 2007

Mark,

Apology accepted. Glad you now see that I’m not apostatizing. As readers of my blog are aware, I usually opine on whatever content I post, so that they know where I stand. In this case I didn’t, and it’s entirely because I was up late the previous evening talking to a girl.

Comment # 38 left by Connor on April 20th, 2007

It’s hard to argue with the statement that orthodoxy translates into safety. Just look at those who have strayed: Jesus from orthodox Jewish tradition - killed; Franklin, Adams, and Washington from political status quo - treasonous; Einstein from traditional scientific thought - initially ridiculed; Joseph Smith from orthodox christianity - also killed.

Comment # 39 left by larryco_ on April 20th, 2007

Larry,

Who ever said Elder Maxwell was referring to physical safety? Wasn’t it Jesus that said that His followers would be persecuted for righteousness’ sake?

I don’t agree with your examples, because added light and knowledge (whether through revelation or scientific discovery) means having a new truth that one must follow to be on the strait and narrow, or to be orthodox. Remember, orthos entails being on the right/correct path, and only by following the modern prophet can one fully do that. The Jews in Jesus’ time, or the so-called Christians in Joseph’s time, were ignoring men of God in their midst teaching them new doctrine that must be obeyed and lived in order to be on the strait and narrow.

On another note, I’m heading out now for the weekend, so I’ll follow up to any additional comments directed towards me when I return in a few days. Peace.

Comment # 40 left by Connor on April 20th, 2007

I am glad that I’m super orthodox. In fact I don’t know of anyone who is more right-thinking and correct-teaching than me.

I sure do feel sorry for all you unorthodox chumps who don’t agree with my right-thinking ways though…

(grins)

Comment # 41 left by Geoff J on April 20th, 2007

I am trying to form an opinion as to orthodoxy as a method. All this is making me think of the ongoing discussions I have had with Mat and others about literal spirit birth. Matt and I disagree. But in a way I feel we are both being orthodox in how we are discussing it. We are both trying to base our beliefs on what we find in the scriptures and the words of modern prophets. What we are discussing has some ambiguity to it in the details. We are speculating. We disagree, but I feel we are doing so in a reasonable way. So what I am suggesting is that in this case we disagree yet we are both orthodox because of what we are basing our beliefs on.

This is new to me, and I am probably not expressing it very well. Carry on.

Comment # 42 left by Eric Nielson on April 20th, 2007

That flies in the face of your argument at we don’t have to follow the modern prophet.

I never said that Connor. You are being deliberately dense. Read Romans 2, would you? What I said is there is no intellectual ascent when it comes to living the gospel, which is what you are arguing in favor of, which argument is patently false. Jesus never taught that people had to believe orthodox doctrines, he taught that people could learn the truth by keeping the commandments. If any man will do his will, he shall know the doctrine. Totally shoots a hole in your orthodoxy argument, but you will pretend it doesnt.

Elder Maxwell’s quote is as good as scripture to me. Or are you rebutting everything that he said as well?

Your misreading of Elder Maxwell and misunderstanding of the Scriptures is the problem here, Connor. I am not attempting to rebut anything Maxwell said, I am exposing your self-serving definition of “orthodoxy” as unscriptural.

Disagreement is one thing, Kurt. Acting like a jerk is another. Your tone, as others would most likely agree, has been condescending and rude. I don’t mind that you think I’m wrong, but please phrase your arguments without the barbs and jeers.

Yes, Connor, if I could only be polite and considerate and charitable like you. Your post is condescending and rude from the get go, and you have been at least as obnoxious as you accuse me of being, take a look at the way you start it off in comment #6. I guess that is an example of charity, eh, Connor? Or do your rules of polite conduct only apply to others?

Comment # 43 left by Kurt on April 20th, 2007

I recently had someone point out to me that to use orthodoxy as a measuring stick (or beating stick) is probably not very helpful in the spirit of encouraging love and unity in the Church. This person pointed out to me that those who hold temple recommends have been judged to be worthy to enter the Lord’s house. Add to the fact that the Lord can look completely on the heart, and I think we need to be careful about judging each other too harshly. If we are to analyze something, we could analyze statements or ideas, but let’s not get personal, eh?

As most people are aware, I am one who is passionate about following the Brethren. But I agree with Matt W. above that we need to be really careful about using labels and dividing lines; my concern is that we are imperfect creatures and really can’t know all that is going on in someone’s life and heart by comments on a blog, or even actions we can see.

In that light, I would recommend that we not use the word orthodoxy as a weapon, or a tool of judgment, or as something that divides us. Let the Lord do the dividing in His time. Why not spend our time each seeking to follow Him the best we can? — and to try — yes, even in the ‘nacle — to give each other the benefit of the doubt, or at least seek for more understanding rather than shut people off? (Do I realize that I have a lot to work on in this regard? Yup. But I think it’s a worthwhile effort. )

(Sorry, but this thread has not been very pleasant to read…. Too many harsh words flying around, IMO.)

Comment # 44 left by Michelle on April 21st, 2007

I’m sorry but isn’t the post a blatant case of preaching to the choir? Here’s the main jist:

“We should be orthodox because church leaders say so, and we should do what the church leaders tell us to do out of orthodoxy.”

In other words, appealing to authority only works for the orthodox. If one is not orthodox, then why should they ever do something just because orthodoxy tells them to? This problem is especially poignant if we equate orthodoxy with obedience as Conner does.

In other words, the post doesn’t seem to accomplish anything.

Comment # 45 left by Jeff G on April 21st, 2007

Hello Jeff G,
So do you think Conner needs a better definition of orthodoxy, or that orthodoxy is just a bad idea all around?

Comment # 46 left by C Jones on April 21st, 2007

Actually, I’m not really taking a stand on either of those questions. I just think that most all arguments for orthodoxy go as follows:

“We should follow the brethren because the brethren tell us to and we should follow what the brethren tell us.”

A clearer case 0f arguing in circles cannot be imagined. Thus the debate between the ortho’s and hetero’s is a non-starter since both sides are arguing from different premises. What I am saying is that Conner needs an argument for his position which does not assume what he is trying to prove. It is only in that case that an actual conversation/debate can be had.

Comment # 47 left by Jeff G on April 21st, 2007

Circular reasoning or not, the Lord set up a system whereby we get His words through His prophets, and those prophets have been required to teach us to follow what the prophets say. It’s a basic foundational principle of our faith. And is a principle based on faith, not necessarily the need to “prove” anything.

Comment # 48 left by Michelle on April 21st, 2007

The problem is that circular reasoning is that it can prove absolutely anything. For instance, how do you know that “the Lord set up a system whereby we get His words through His prophets, and those prophets have been required to teach us to follow what the prophets say”? Easy! The Lord has told us so by way of His prophets who have been required to tell us so.

I was simply pointing out that the Conner is appealing to the following argument:

P1) The prophets have taught us to obey them.
p2) We should do what the prophets teach.
—–
C1) Therefore, we should obey the prophets.

Conner can demonstrate P1 ’til the cows come home and you will never get to C1 unless P2 is in place, but P2 just is C1. In other words, his argument will never convince anybody who doesn’t already agree with his conclusion.

It isn’t a matter of “proving” anything, just a matter of simple reasoning. If you are going to claim that simple reasoning is also unnecessary, I will be at a serious loss for words. Why would anybody ever blog if basic reasoning didn’t matter?

Comment # 49 left by Jeff G on April 21st, 2007

p2 amended) Obeying the prophets makes our lives better than they otherwise would be.

Comment # 50 left by Matt W. on April 21st, 2007

Okay, but this amended premise is by no means obviously true. Conner sure hasn’t argued for it. Furthermore, all arguments in support of the amended premise usually appeal to what the prophets have said, which is again circular in this context.

Also, it is unclear how the amended premise fits into any kind of “ought” argument, especially one concerning orthodoxy.

The problem really seems to lie with P1. It would seem that no argument can or at least has been provided for C2. Maybe that’s why church lesson focus more on faith promoting stories instead rather than arguments.

Comment # 51 left by Jeff G on April 21st, 2007

Or Faith Promoting Stories are evidence which substantiates P2…

If it is unclear to you how the amended premise fits into any kind of “ought” argument, maybe it’s because it relies on the premise that “we ought to want to have better lives” has already been established.

Comment # 52 left by Matt W. on April 21st, 2007

While I can see that FPS are aimed at substantiating P2a (though it is not at all clear that they actually do so), you draw the wrong conclusion. You are not aimed at “you ought to want to have better lives” but rather “you ought to have better lives.” This second one is a pretty strong claim. It is not clear that a) what “better means here” and b) that we actually are obligated to have better lives in whatever sense (a) amounts to.

Either way, quoting scripture seems to be fading further and further from center stage in whatever argument this might amount to.

Comment # 53 left by Jeff G on April 21st, 2007

weird, I’ve lost my last comment. Oh well. Thanks for the concession on FPS. I don’t think I am aimed at the wrong conculsion. I think “you ought to have better lives.” is an underlying premise of “you ought to want to have better lives” I was just trying to be specific. It is of course not clear what better means, as it is entirely situational and subjective. It’s “my” life with or without adherence to the prophet’s council we are talking about here. (And of course I “believe” that these things that make my life better can have some form of universal application based again upon my own analysis and study from my own point of view.

Anyway, we don’t need to define necasarily a specific meaning of better down. That’s like trying to explain why life with food is better than life without food, or why being alive is better than being dead,etc. If we must have a solid definition of better, let’s go with the general economic concept of increased utility.

And last, I find your comment referencing scripture quoting curious. I do not take your meaning.

Comment # 54 left by Matt W. on April 21st, 2007

RoAnn (#18),

Your Gordon B. Hinckley quote comes from Washington Times reporter Larry A. Witham’s non-LDS book, Where Darwin Meets the Bible, wherein he reports what President Hinckley said to him in an interview.  You might also want to consider the official 2,700 word First Presidency statement on the subject.  It represents the Church’s current “doctrinal position on these matters.”

Also, you are wrong about individual Church leaders expressing “widely differing views” on this subject.  In reality, the prophets, apostles, and seventies of this dispensation have demonstrated a remarkable unity in their public teachings about evolution as an explanation for the origin of man  (click here for more about the above mentioned First Presidency statement, as well as some examples of individual teachings from past and present Church leaders).

Comment # 55 left by R. Gary on April 22nd, 2007

Okay Matt, I think I need you to back out and come back in again, if only to clear things up for me. What are the P’s and C that you are discussing here? Can you outline it similar to how I did in 49.

Comment # 56 left by Jeff G on April 22nd, 2007

Jeff G,
In #51 you said that no argument could be made for the conclusion that we should obey the prophets. Do you really mean that? And if Conner is trying to make the point that orthodoxy=good, and heterodoxy=bad, what would be a non-circular way to argue that view if he can’t appeal to prophetic authority?

Comment # 57 left by C Jones on April 22nd, 2007

C Jones,

It is certainly true that an argument which appeals to the prophet that we should obey the prophets is no argument at all, and it is very difficult to see how one could construct a good argument which does not do this. I imagine it can be done, but:

It isn’t usually attempted.
It doesn’t seem to have been done.
Conner didn’t even try to do it.
And so on.

You can say that obeying the prophets makes me happy, but that is exactly why I don’t obey the prophets sometimes, because it makes me happy to not obey them. Who are you to say what does and does not make me happy? The only way around this problem seems to be an appeal to prophetic authority, which is the exact problem which I pointed out above, arguing in circles.

I guess one could argue orthodoxy=good, heterodoxy=bad, but I’ve certainly never seen an argument for it. Only mere assertions and question begging.

Comment # 58 left by Jeff G on April 22nd, 2007

Working Backwards to save time:

C1) Therefore, we should obey the prophets.
–
P3 or C2)We want to have better lives.
p2 ) Obeying the prophets makes our lives better than they otherwise would be.
P1) The prophets have taught us to obey them. (Please note P1 is almost entirely redundant to this argument now…)

C2)We want to have better lives.

Pa) We can have better lives.
Pb)Better lives increase our utility.
Pc)We want to increase our utility.

Comment # 59 left by Matt W. on April 22nd, 2007

Okay, there are a number of problems, but I will limit myself to the most pressing ones:

First, P1 is completely superfluous (which would make Conner’s post entirely superfluous).

P2 is not at all obvious, especially if we include “orthodox thinking” within the scope of obedience. How do you know that it makes our lives better? How do you know that it will make MY life better?

The argument is invalid. The “ought” which is at the center of C1 finds no support from any of the premises. The most you can get, assuming P2 and P3, is “IF you want to have a better life, THEN you should obey the prophets.” This, however, is not a moral mandate of any kind. This conclusion has no binding force at all.

In summary, P3 seems okay. P2 seems unlikely. Even if P2 is true, it doesn’t actually argue for C1. Serious problems these.

Comment # 60 left by Jeff G on April 22nd, 2007

P1 is superfluos (I noted as much in my statement above.), so I can agree there and remove it, but I’m not following you on the rest.

This is like saying “IF the cat is red, and the dog is the same color, THEN the dog is red.” The argument is not invalid. You may find it not wholly supported, but that does not invalidate it.

What you really want me to argue (I think) is that we have to want to increase our utility. This is apparantly not obvious to you.

You also want me to prove (or support) for you that obeying the prophets actually does increase utility. This is also apparantly not obvious to you.

I can accept that Jeff, but being that you discount any FPS, I’m not going to do it. I don’t even know that I have addequate training in logic or economics to explain the human need to increase utility. And second, I don’t have the tools available to present any data correlating utility increase in life with prophetic obedience. I will grant you that that would be an interestng survey to set up though, and I may attempt one in the future.

Comment # 61 left by Matt W. on April 23rd, 2007

Doh! I was hoping you hadn’t replied yet since I realized that the hypothetical imperative version of C1 which I grant combined with your P3 does reach your version of C1. Thus it would seem to be valid, but I don’t get the whole “same color” remark. I am still unconvinced that the C1 which can be drawn from your argument has any moral force to it:

A) If we want to have better lives we should follow the prophet.
B) We want to have better lives.
—–
C) Therefore, we should follow the prophet.

This seems more like a mere recommendation rather than a moral imperative.

Actually, I don’t care either way about utility since it is unclear to me 1) that utilitarianism is compatible with theism, 2) utilitarianism is true, 3) what in the world utility is or 4) what utility has to do with my own personal preferences.

I don’t discount FPS’s. I do, however, think that they tend to tell their stories in a strongly biased fashion, sometimes bordering on outright fabrication. I also think that there is a STRONG tendency toward biased data selection. The whole point of FPS is that the issue is an empirical one, and theists have little to no interest in an unbiased empirical investigation into the question since they already “know” the answer. This bias is by no means unique to theism though, its pretty much human nature.

Comment # 62 left by Jeff G on April 23rd, 2007

I guess I see a strong difference between your

A)If we want to have better lives we should follow the prophet.

and my

p2 ) Obeying the prophets makes our lives better than they otherwise would be.

There is no “If” in my argument. It seems more like you don’t believe p2 is true, based on your definition of “better lives”. Is that fair to say?

I’ll have to take up the cause of utility at some later time.

And discounting’s most prevelant method in modern language is “Yes, But…”

In a pinch “I don’t do that, however…” works to…

Comment # 63 left by Matt W. on April 23rd, 2007

I see no difference between A and P2. They are logically equivalent. Both are of the form:

obedience => better

That said, there are significant ambiguities in your P2. Who is the “we” that it speaks of? Is it speaking of individuals or collectives?

If it is the former, the following seem to hold:
1) P2 seems to lack moral weight.
2) FPS may offer some support.
3) Supporting evidence is still woefully lacking.

If, however, it is the latter, the following seem to hold:
4) P2 might have some moral weight.
5) FPS of the relevant kind are VERY few and far between.
6) Supporting evidence is still woefully lacking.

Either way, if the religious actually had any empirical evidence whatsoever that P2 were true, they would be touting it all over the place. The fact that they are not doing such would suggest that they do not have any such evidence.

As for FPS, I meant that I do not reject ALL FPS. I forgot that very important word “all.” I am more than willing to grant that following the prophet has made some people have better lives in some cases. I don’t think that the prophets are complete idiots that never, under any circumstances guide people to better lives. The burden, however, is on the theist to demonstrate that the prophets’ track record is any better than that of the non-prophets. This burden has simply not been met.

Comment # 64 left by Jeff G on April 23rd, 2007

I should also clarify a number of other issues:

An appeal to Utilitarianism is very dangerous in this context. Utilitarianism holds that a person should do not that which produces more utility, but rather that which produces the MOST utility. It is extraordinarily unlikely that this claim which find support from anything but the scriptures. But, and this has been my main point, appealing to the scriptures simply begs the question by assuming the very conclusion which is being argued for.

Regarding the supposed logical equivalence of A and P2, let me make it a bit clearer:

If obedience then better.
Obedience only if better.
If not better, then not obedience.

This last claim is extremely strong and even bigoted. It basically says that if your life has not been better then you have not obeyed the prophets.(!)

You were right in seeing a difference between P2 and A. I was treating obedience as a necessary rather than a sufficient condition. While I admit that you have not explicitly claimed “your life will be better only if you obey” theists come mighty close to this claim.

In fact, if you are going to appeal to utilitarianism with its implied superlative, then it will be very difficult to avoid the best obedience relation.

Comment # 65 left by Jeff G on April 23rd, 2007

I am not sure as to the ultimate difference between the individual or the collective in the scenario. Do you mean the individual experience or the individual person, or the collective teachings of the prophet? I apologize for being uncertain, but I am sure you can see what difference these three things would make in whether or not I agree with you.

Good catch on the important term ALL. I could equally say I do not accept all FPS.

I have to warn you, I have low philosophical credentials, but I am not sure your utilitariansim is what I speak of when I use utility in the economics sense, as I am not sure we have the foresight, hindsight, even “nowsight” we would need to say “If not better, then not obedience”. After all, you can improve your utility by eating a cheeseburger. While not exactly correct, I have seen utility defined as the measure of happiness and satisfaction derived from a choice.

Anyway, I am in a bit of a rush, so I apologize if this is totally not to the point.

Comment # 66 left by Matt W. on April 24th, 2007

Sorry ’bout that. I should have been clearer.

There is a big difference between egoism and Utilitarianism. Egoism says that you “ought” (if the word even really applies in this context) do whatever is best for yourself. Its not a very good moral theory.

Utilitarianism, however, says that you ought to do whatever produces the most Utility for everybody in the world. This is a much better moral theory.

Your P2 sounds an awful lot like egoism rather than Utilitarianism. However, if it is slightly modified to be a form of Utilitarianism, it becomes increasingly unlikely. This is the conundrum.

The other ambiguity lies in the difference between better and best. For Utilitarianism, the right action is the one which produces the BEST, not merely better consequences. Again, this makes a Utilitarian P2 sound even less likely.

Thus, the P2u as I will call it is:

If you obey the prophets, it will produce the best consequences or most utility.

which is logically equivalent to

If the most utility has not been produced, then you did not obey the prophets.

There is no question about whether one of these claims is made without the other, for they are each entailed by the other. Of course both of these claims are extraordinarily difficult to test, but this makes them less supported by the evidence, not more. Remember, we are looking for an argument in favor of obedience, not merely a way to sidestep criticisms.

Comment # 67 left by Jeff G on April 24th, 2007

I think it’s rather ironic that, in a Church that was founded by someone who detested creeds, some of us try so hard to nail down orthodox belief.

Outside of some core, foundational doctrines (e.g., continuous revelation, Jesus Christ’s atonement), there’s a substantial amount of gray area, and therefore room for personal belief and interpretation.

Comment # 68 left by Steve M on April 24th, 2007

Steve M. If Orthodoxy is merely “correct opinion” and limited only to foundational doctrines, what does creeds have to do with anything?

Jeff G- I propose a simple study. We could set up a likert scale measuring happiness and satisfaction in life, compared with activity in the church. It would be an experimental study, and thus prove nothing, but it would be a good stepping stone.

Question one could divide into three categories:
1. Those who know the commandments of the prophets and keep them
2. Those who know the commandments of the prophets and do not keep them
3. Those who do not know the commandments of the prophets.

I am not sure of a way to get an unbiased sample group however, so this is where what you say about it really being difficult to get a good honest measurement comes in.

The main problem with moving from better to best is that it is much more difficult to measure what is best, as while what is better is subjective, what is best is even more so, and the tools for getting a measurement is such a regard are generally lacking. Also, Elder Oaks’ now somewhat wornout caveat of general rules from the general authority reminds us that the rules are not situation specific, and thus application of the rules in any given situation may vary. So it is hard to measure what exactly is “obedience to the rules.” and it is hard to measure what is “best.” Of course this is not situational only to believing members of the LDS church, but is the burden of any and every decision or maxim in any and every situation.

I think we are better served (best served?) limiting ourselves to:

If you obey the prophets, it will produce the better consequences or more utility.

which is logically equivalent to

If more utility has not been produced, then you did not obey the prophets.

Of course, since we are really discussing orthodoxy (Correct opinion)

What we are really saying is:

If you obey the correct opinion, it will produce the better consequences or more utility.

So again, it seems that this is reasonable. The real question I think you are proposing is whether or not the prophets teach correct opinion. I believe they do. I admit freely to not knowing a way to fully substantiate (or falsify) that claim in an absolute empirical fashion. Thus, based on subjective non-emperical methods(like when I have obeyed it has been better for me, when others I know have obeyed, it has been better for them, etc.) I make the choice to believe at this time.

Comment # 69 left by Matt W. on April 24th, 2007

Steve M. If Orthodoxy is merely “correct opinion” and limited only to foundational doctrines, what does creeds have to do with anything?

Huh? I honestly haven’t been following the entire conversation that’s taken place.

My point is that while orthopraxy is very-well defined in Mormonism, orthodoxy is not so clear-cut. Attempts to move in the direction of prescribing the details of what Church members can and cannot believe seems to be at odds with Joseph Smith’s vision for the Church. He said:

“I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism, and not like Latter-day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their Church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be trammeled.”

While certain confessions of belief (e.g., in God, in Jesus Christ, etc.) are reasonable requirements for participation in certain privileges and ordinances, such as baptism. However, I don’t believe it’s productive to attempt to explicitly define or insist upon some type of Mormon orthodoxy when it comes to personal belief.

Comment # 70 left by Steve M on April 24th, 2007

Sorry for how poorly worded my past comment was. I really need to learn to proof read things before hitting “Submit.”

Comment # 71 left by Steve M on April 24th, 2007

Steve M, no worries, if the “orthopraxy” of Mormonism required propper writing, spelling, and grammer, we’d all be in trouble.

I think there are very basic things that Latter-days Saints are required to believe to be orthodox.

1. There is a God
2. God loves us
3. God’s plan for us is correct
4. The Church has the correct understanding of God’s plan.
5. The Book of Mormon is what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.
6. The prophets of the church really are prophets.
7. The Authority in the Church is Real.
8. Jesus Christ was real and really accomplished the atonement.

I am sure there are other things, but what I want to point out is that two members of the Church can believe in say #8, and have different views of what exactly the atonement did. Was it Penal Substitution? Moral Influence? Royal Empathy? Divine Compassion? Divine Solution? The difference in the details is less important in Mormonism than the general belief in the overarching concept.

I don’t think we are disagreeing on the overarching concept here. Perhaps we do disagree in the details, but I am entirely ok with that.

Comment # 72 left by Matt W. on April 24th, 2007

i’m coming into this way late. the whole notion of orthodoxy or ‘true doctrine’ in mormonism is a fascinating subject for me. i wrote a short paper on the subject last winter, which i plan to expand into a much larger thesis this summer. nate oman also gave a very good paper on the subject at the recent smpt conference (though i disagreed with him on a few issues).

the three biggest issues that i see with attempting to define or demand orthodoxy in mormonism is first (as steve m. and others have pointed out), that demanding orthodoxy is really no different than the creedalism that joseph smith is was ardently against. it turns into a weapon of exclusion. second, the demands of orthodoxy seem to be a sign of systemic apostacy. look at the great apostacy. orthodoxy sets a standard of unwavering absolutism which seem to go against the key markers of mormonism - continual and personal revelation. finally, orthodoxy is problematic because it is nearly impossible to define. what was orthodox in the 19th century is not orthodox today, and what is orthodox today may not be orthodox tomorrow. the teachings of the church are in constant fluctuation. for brigham young, the adam-god doctrine was essential to our salvation. that is no longer the case today. even with moral issues such as birth-control, modesty, abortion, poverty, rape, homosexuality, the word of wisdom, etc., the church is ever-changing on its stances on what is the will of god (despite the constant claims for moral absolutism).

as far as matt w.’s reply to steve m. goes, while perhaps all mormons should accept those word, as he readily admits, what those words mean may be completely different. what is god? what is a prophet? what is god’s love? what is god’s plan? what is the ‘Church’? what did joseph smith claim the book of mormon to be? what is a prophet? what is ‘Authority’? what was the atonement? sharing the terminology does not mean sharing the meaning. if we mean different things, can we really say at all that we are in agreement?

Comment # 73 left by the narrator on April 24th, 2007

Post a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail