posted
(Responding to the replies in general)I'm sorry, but that just seems crazy. I can understand where the church might not want to pay people over and above room and board, but I think if someone is willing to work for the church--go thousands of miles away in some cases--the least the church should do is pay for room and board.
posted
My parents paid for my mission, with the understanding that I would come up with the money for my college education.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Storm, but isn't it amazing that so many missionaries do go anyway? That has got to strengthen their conviction at any rate, and make them make sure they really want to go before they do.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Tangent] You know, I've found that what people refer to as 'deeper doctrines' are generally one-note, peripheral speculations based on something some early Church leader may have said (or not). I don't seem most of them as being all that deep or doctrinal.
Not that these peripheral matters aren't somewhat interesting. It's simply that I have seen them presented or discussed as mind-blowing and totally fascinating when they really aren't -- esp. not compared to the core stuff. It's not meat (ref = milk before meat thing with some long-time members getting frustrated that there isn't more 'meat' in LDS Sunday services). And the solution isn't more of that stuff, but to understand the scriptures better as well as how they relate to our lives in a more personal, profound way.
The Gospel Principles manual, which is used in the Sunday School class for new members, is about as deep and doctrinal as you can get, imo. As is much of canonical Mormon scripture. I mean Lehi on agency and opposites. Alma on justice and mercy. Moses and Abraham on creation, priesthood and the cosmos. Joseph Smith on light, truth and spirit, on the atonement, and on the use and miuse of priesthood power. etc. etc. [/Tangent]
Sorry about that rant. It's a sore topic with me.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, it gets even better than that. The missionary, or his/her family, doesn't spend the money himself. He pays it to the Church, who then distributes the collective funds to all the missionaries on the basis of need, e.g. local living expenses.
So every missionary (at least from North America) pays the same monthly amount, but every mission has different expenses. Plus, the Church (actually the local representatives, such as the Mission Presidents) decide how much money each missionary will actually get. They are not allowed to rent too expensive of an apartment, or pay too much for meals, or for laundry service. If prices are raised, they might be asked to find a different, cheaper apartment, or to eat more often with the members.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. The closest thing I can find is this, pooka:
quote:The Lord has told us of three degrees of glory. There are three "heavens," as it is often referred to. We call them the telestial, terrestrial, and the celestial. I cannot for a minute conceive the telestial being hell, either, because it is considered a heaven, a glory. The Prophet Joseph Smith told us that if we could getone little glimpse into the telestial glory even, the glory is so great that we would be tempted to commit suicide to get there (Eldred G. Smith, BYU Speeches, March 10, 1964, p. 4).
I can't find any statement like that from Joseph Smith, though. Here's a nice discussion of it over at Eric D. Snider's message board. About halfway down the page, Eric refutes the statement pretty well.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
SS - I can understand your thoughts. However, from the perspective of an LDS missionary, you are there to serve God (and the people with whom you will come into contact) - and God doesn't pay you (in money) to serve Him. I actually like that missionaries are required to contribute to their own sustenance, because I think that being a missionary is a privalege, and having to pay your own way helps to reinforce that (in my mind). You have to understand though, that service in the LDS church is not paid - it is volunteer work. We have a lay ministry (and a lay missionary force).
posted
Heh. I actually lost about fifteen pounds in Detroit without excercize simply because there weren't any members to feed us and we had only $100 a month to spend on food. That, and we didn't believe in stopping for dinner.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The deep doctrine gives context and meaning, the 'bigger picture,' but is not vital."
Does this mean that you can disbelieve all the "deep doctrine," but still legitimately be called a Mormon?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The support isn't from tithing, though. It comes from separate donations on top of tithing.
Tithing builds temples and church buildings.
And operate them along with the basic activities of local congregations. And what's great is that since the late 80s the dispersion of tithing funds for these uses have been based on the size of the congregation (as decided by attendance at Sunday services). Not that this *completely* erases the problem. But I like being part of a Church where we don't have wealthy congregations competing for congregants with those in poorer neighboring areas. You go to the ward in whose boundaries you live. And your congregation gets as much of a percentage as the rich one up in the hills.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that's another interesting point that all our bishops (pastors) and the level above them (not sure what it would be called) are volunteers. It's pretty amazing anything gets done. But they do it for about five years (wild abberations have been known to occur) and then someone else takes over.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I guess so, yeah. Like the question we discussed about polygamy in the afterlife. If it isn't relevant to your own righteousness, it's actually a distraction, and kind of wrong to get really worried about.
Are Asians descended from the tribes of Israel? Who cares? Are the extraterrestrials in the tabloids children of God? Doesn't matter. P.S. do they pay tithing? None of my business.
quote:Does this mean that you can disbelieve all the "deep doctrine," but still legitimately be called a Mormon?
Tom -- it depends on what you mean by 'deep doctrine'? If you mean, if I can disbelieve that the lost 10 tribes are living under the polar ice cap, or that there will arise a Messiah ben Joseph who will save the Church in the 'last days' or that there will be a 'literal' trek by all the Mormons to Jackson County Missouri. Then, yeah. No worries there.
If you disbelieve that Christ effectuated an eternal atonement and was resurrected or that Joseph Smith received the keys of the priesthood then, yeah, that's a problem.
EDIT: although I should add that I know Mormons who are unsure about the historicity of the Book of Mormon who actively participate in their local LDS congregations.
quote: Storm, it gets even better than that. The missionary, or his/her family, doesn't spend the money himself. He pays it to the Church, who then distributes the collective funds to all the missionaries on the basis of need, e.g. local living expenses.
So every missionary (at least from North America) pays the same monthly amount, but every mission has different expenses. Plus, the Church (actually the local representatives, such as the Mission Presidents) decide how much money each missionary will actually get. They are not allowed to rent too expensive of an apartment, or pay too much for meals, or for laundry service. If prices are raised, they might be asked to find a different, cheaper apartment, or to eat more often with the members.
O.K. This explanation makes it 'better' for me. The members do pay for all the missionaries to some degree (with Kat's caveat that the missionaries are the church). I like this, too, because if expenses for funds all come out of the same pot, all the missionaries suffer the same deprivations of comfort.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though I still think that if the young men are commanded to do it, I think just taking the time out of your life to go do it is enough sacrifice on that member's part and the church ought to pay for all expenses while that person is a missionary.
I get the whole noble sacrifice angle, I just am uncomfortable with it.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That, and we didn't believe in stopping for dinner
Oh yeah, and -- bad, kat. Very bad.
A note to any future missionaries who read this -- esp. sister missionaries: Do not run yourself into the ground. Stopping for dinner is just as important as teaching people.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Does this mean that you can disbelieve all the "deep doctrine," but still legitimately be called a Mormon?
Depends on how you define being "called a Mormon". But that is aside from the point.
An important part of being a believing Latter-day Saint is believing in the cannonized scripture and the words of living prophets and apostles. If you didn't believe those things, you would probably feel more comfortable in any number of other Christian religions that don't require quite so much of their members.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zal, we did it for seven months and it worked out fine. Big breakfast - biscuits, olive oil and balsamic vinegar, and yogurt - and a good lunch, and then an apple sometimes when we got in at night.
*misses Aldi's*
quote:Though I still think that if the young men are commanded to do it, I think just taking the time out of your life to go do it is enough sacrifice on that member's part and the church ought to pay for all expenses while that person is a missionary.
Well, it's the Lord commanding, and since everything we have comes from him, and the ability to afford to pay for a mission is a blessing...
posted
Yeah, Tom, pretty much. There are some basics you need to believe and act on, but there is actually quite a bit of variety. Though you might not know that going to church and seeing everyone in suits and skirts.
For instance, I believe the earth is billions of years old and that life evolved.
Many LDS people I know believe it is about 6 thousand years old and that the Genesis account is quite literal.
posted
Tom, a better question would be: Can you be unaware of all the "deep doctrine" and still be a member of the Church in good standing?
I define deep doctrine as all the stuff that doesn't matter to your salvation.
Not that learning and knowing things is discouraged. But when the quest for the trivial facts and obscure references becomes more important than gaining faith in Jesus Christ and living his gospel, then there's a problem. We believe that as a person is faithful and obedient to the basic teachings, knowledge will naturally be added on. That's the order of things.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, Zal, I would consider some of those things speculations rather than deep doctrines.
Tom, we all believe that there is a-plenty not yet revealed to us, so a lot of us like to get into long, deep discussions on what might be, infering based on what has been revealed.
Is this anything like the famed Jewish love of debating based on their cannonized scripture?
posted
We really need a better term. This 'deep doctrine' thing is really bugging me. And in some cases, I think that it interferes with Mormons trying to better understand those doctrines that *are* essential.
EDIT: to repond to beverly's reply -- exactly my point. *you* would define them that way. but in my experience other Mormons wouldn't -- they define 'deep doctrine' as anything and more importantly everything that goes beyond your basic sunday school answers. the problem with this attitude, imo, is what I refer to above.
posted
More often than "deep doctrine," I hear the word "mysteries." I have a problem with both terms, as they are used to describe areas of speculation.
To me, as long as it is really "doctrine," there is nothing wrong with "deep doctrine." If it's not doctrine, then don't call it that.
As for "mysteries," the best definition I have ever heard is "something that cannot be known without revelation." Any other meaning gets murky or downright silly.
posted
Storm Saxon - what is it about the sacrifice that bothers you? That someone would ask somebody else to do that? That teenagers would be willing to do it? That you think that they must be brainwashed to do so? That you are uncomfortable with others giving up more than you have been asked to? (I have no way of knowing if this is true -- I'm just throwing out ideas here)
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
peterh- When they issued the proclamation (on the family) they said it was only one of five that had been issued since the restoration. I don't know if Declaration 2 is included or not. (Declaration 2, for observers, was already made part of the canon, Joining declaration 1, the rescindment of Polygamy).
I don't know about the definition of Deep doctrine as being personal revelation only. That makes it sound like it's desireable. I liked the expression "Space Doctrine" I heard once for lost tribes sorts of questions. Whether the Atonement involves time travel... I dunno. (One major reason that I wouldn't see "The Passion" even if it weren't rated R is overexposure to this kind of puzzling). Joseph F. Smith (Nephew of the first Joseph Smith and also a church president) called them "Gospel Hobbies". You feel like you are obsessing with something spiritual, but you're still obsessing and it's taking you away from the basic idea of working on becoming more Christlike.
posted
I know all the places you mentioned Katharina. Ann Arbor rocks... great college city. I'm an Alma College boy myself, but UofM is fun too. I'm glad you like our Metro City... it gets a bad rap alot of the time.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Ann Arbor was incredible. It's the only place I've ever seen that was truly integrated across racial and religious lines, all on the same street.
Of course, everyone had money, so there was a unifying theme.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're exactly right Pooka. We've been alive for 2 of the 5.
Also I like the phrase "straining at a gnat" when talking about "gospel hobbies". It's the classic forest for the trees discussion.
Posts: 995 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a lot more must go on in the spirit world than just waiting around for the resurrection, too. Because of eternal progression. There must be some sort of experiences and learning over all that time to allow us to continue to progress and grow up and become truly Christlike. But I guess we know everything we need to know about it at this point. We will find out more when the time comes.
I think the BoM is the true spiritual story. Whether and when and how the exact archeological timetable happened isn't so important to me. I don't see scriptures as being intended to be used as science texts. So, yes, I totally believe in science: in paleontology and geology and evolution and so on. Like Brigham Young said, everything that's true is part of our religion. We are encouraged (over and over again) constantly to educate ourselves as much as we possibly can.
Anyway, I agree that speculations on things like lost tribes and the nature of the spirit world can distract attention from what really matters, especially to people just finding out about the church.
Something cool that might interest you is the Perpetual Education Fund. We have a fund we can support (on top of tithes and fast offerings and the missionary fund) that goes to provide educational loans for young people (mostly returned missionaries) mostly in poor countries. They pay back the loans when they get done with school, from their increased earnings, and it just grows and grows. I always try to donate a little something to the PEF, as I know lots of people do. Mormons are BIG on education! I love that about the LDS church.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I DO have a question related to the importance of "deep doctrine," though, insofar as it represents "distracting" speculation: at what point does it BECOME relevant?
Let's take scientology as an example. Is it relevant that the highest levels of scientology center on the alien Xenu, if most of the low-level members are focused on its teachings of self-improvement? At what point does the Xenu thing matter, if ever?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Deep doctrine" is always relevant if it is in fact doctrine, and not just something somebody made up based on something they overheard somebody who is supposedly "in-the-know" say.
Unfortunately, much of what is often called "deep doctrine" in the LDS Church is not really doctrine at all.
The whole concept of "doctrine" is highly dependent on the church/religion in question, though. For a church as highly centralized/correlated as the LDS Church, it is a very important, and sometimes technical, question.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Let me jump to a conclusion and wonder if your Scientology reference is a veiled allusion to the Mormon doctrines related to the temple and eternal progression.
I'd say that those doctrines are both deep and central. And there's an important difference between us and the Xenu thing -- from the very first presentation the Mormon missionaries make to interested parties, they say that our ultimate goal is to become like our Heavenly Father. Now we may not tease out *all* the implications of that idea from the get-go. But in my experience the deep doctrines are part of Mormon discourse on all levels. And in regards to the temple, as has been repeatedly stated much of what is taught in the temple ceremony comes straight from the canon of Mormon scripture i.e. the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & covenants and Pearl of Great Price [unlike Xenu -- I've read Dianetics and there's not much in there that prepared me for what the *higher* levels of Scientoloyg are].
See also the Gospel Principles manual that I mention above.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I guess, for me, the difference is that I simply cannot believe that an enormous civilization -- with horses -- once existed here in America that was previously visited by Jesus, and I have trouble believing that God and his family live on a planet orbiting another star. I don't believe, based on what I've seen, that Joseph Smith had any clue how to translate Egyptian glyphs. These are huge stumbling blocks that, were I to seriously consider the LDS church, I would not be able to get past. Could someone who didn't believe these things still be a Mormon?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
heheheh This is all great info.![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
