I wouldn’t go so far as to say that what we wear doesn’t matter. I would just say that it’s not as important in actuality as it is seen to be culturally. It would help if our official line could catch up with what actually goes on in terms of dress. We are told to wear our “best,” but that doesn’t address the unidentified standard of dress, nor the totally unidentified upper limit. The day after prom for HS kids aside, we don’t have people wearing formal attire to Church — no tuxes or evening gowns — and some folks own them.

But, mostly, I think we need to be prepared to accept people as they are, rather than “encouraging” them to be “better,” especially when that standard of “better” is subjective and cultural, rather than doctrinal. More with the loving our neighbor.

re 42: Jared, no atheists in foxholes, eh?

re 43: yeah, now you’ve been challenged, MH. You’ve got to please.

That definitely makes sense. I must admit that when I was younger, I’d look in disdain at people at other churches who would go in just jeans and t-shirts, and I’d think, “I’m so glad my church has higher standards.”

But as I grew up, I realized that what you wear to church is really not important…and in fact, I was finding that some of the most spiritual, most knowledgeable people in the church were being shunned because they didn’t wear that Mormon uniform. And that’s a shame.

now…about that GE vs. GD.

I will say that…whenever I go to my home ward (since I’m at school most of the year and *gasp*, I barely attend any ward these days), I don’t even try to find the class I’m supposed to be in. I’m pretty sure it’s a GD class, but I’m pretty sure it’s the wrong age group. No one’s called me out on being a creepy college kid in the 16-17 year old class. And if anyone wants to chastise me, I’ll just pass the blame game and say my confusion is due to all of the college students in the area who won’t even go to class and show me which one is the right one.

re 40:

This also makes sense, Mytha, but I would have a question: do you ever feel a tension that perhaps many members actually *do* think the church comes first in importance? If so, do you simply look past these tensions?

Note: I was active in the church while in the military.

There are things you have written that I disagree with, and many things on Mormon Matters I disagree with very strongly. Mormon Heretic for example, I disagree strongly with a lot he writes. And T&S I disagree with strongly at times. But I don’t care, because what people choose to do with their lives has nothing to do with me. I got what I needed from these sites. That is all that matters to me. I don’t need anybody to declare to me their particular version of anything. I have a head on my shoulders and the spirit in my heart to be able to find my own way through this thing.

I think for a lot of us there just isn’t any other option. I spent 20 years trying to be what I was supposed to be before I finally admitted that there some things that deep down I just don’t believe, and can’t make myself believe. If the choice were to become more orthodox or get out, I’d be gone.

Cafeteria Mormons are still in the church because it’s filling *some* kind of need for them. So the question becomes “Are the members there to serve the needs of the church, or is the church’s purpose to serve the needs of the members?” If the church comes first in importance, then perhaps Cafeteria Mormons are undesirables who need to commit fully or move on. If the members are most important, then yes, Cafeteria Mormonism is legitimate and members should be encouraged to participate in the church at whatever level is most comfortable for them.

I have never been shouted down for saying something the teacher didn’t like in GE, or had a point blown off. I’ve had both happen in GD. And EQ, for that matter.

5 — Thanks. I do. Half the time, I even pick the ward I want to attend (I work out of town weekends, and only come home for Church every other week). A very big determining factor for me is the GD class, especially the teacher.

19 — Things that aren’t as important? Some easy things include folk doctrine and folk policy, wearing Mormon uniform, and the like. Other things would be the expectation that people present as perfect, or that they agree with the orthodox members about everything. A big place would be the pressure and competitiveness and meanness women have for each other.

Now that I put it that way, those things all need to go away, period, not just for new members or people who don’t easily fit into the box. They are the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, and they are a cancer in the body of the Church.

Stopping to think a little more, I think what I had in mind when I wrote this were the details of the program of the Church, and the idea that people need to look, dress, think, talk and act like everybody else who comes to Church every week. And I think that this comes less from Church leaders than it comes from average members. It is about putting on the Mormon identity, rather than in allowing the Restored Gospel to change your heart and life.

Thanks for showing that someone read more than that I’ve attended GE in preference for GD.

Aboz, I most certainly am agnostic; you are correct. I do not know if god exists or does not exist.

However, this does not answer the question about belief. Once someone makes an agnostic stance, they are not exempt from making a belief stance or not. Someone can say, “I don’t know if God exists, but I believe he does,” (agnostic theist) or “I don’t know if God exists, but I don’t believe he does,” (agnostic weak atheist), or “I don’t know if God exists, but I believe he doesn’t,” (agnostic strong atheist.) So, I am atheist because I do not believe in God.

But, continuing to the heart of your message…I think it’s pretty interesting how the bloggernacle has affected you, and you seem to think it is for the positive (which I’m happy for). But a blog like Times and Seasons is also part of the Bloggernacle, and their bloggers seem to be preoccupied with a quite different sort of thing than John Dehlin has been advocating…so what of them? What of Jared from LDS Alive in Christ, who is a very active commenter here but who does have a very solid opinion on what is orthodox and what is not?

So, back to 33…I guess the idea though is that there ARE social pressures though…some which chip away faster at the “culture” of the church (not doctrine, as you point out with some issues, but rather just the cultural leanings of some members) and some pressures chip away more slowly.

…nope…I’m still not quite sure what you mean here, so I don’t know what to say in reply.

I guess what I would say is…even if the attitudes of certain members are not doctrine, the church *is* comprised of people. So if a plurality of members have certain views about stem cell research, this can be just as vexxing as an official church position.

Bark away gents, not all your gripes have to be directed at core doctrinal issues. Last month Pfizer started backing stem cell procedures aimed at curing macular degeneration in the UK http://www.pharmafocus.com/cda/focusH/1,2109,21-0-0-APR_2009-focus_news_detail-0-492714,00.html . The LDS church is silent on embryonic stem cell research, the catholic and evangelicals are against it. Not everybody has to be Rosa Parks, but we can try and put the mental transmission in first gear on current issues that affect us all. If the LDS church had the same stance on GLBT members 20 years ago that it has today, there could have been less depression and with out a doubt, lives saved. It’s not like the doctrine changed since then, but valid social pressures have made an impact, no matter how incremental. These things happen when the cobwebs of old thought are shaken.

I think this has been emphasized and stated much more explicitly lately (since Pres. Hinckley was sustained, at least) than previously. Elder Wirthlin was the best example over the last few years, but Elders Cook and Andersen seem to be carrying that torch, as well. Frankly, I’m encouraged by that movement.

It really is one of the ironies of religion that people think Mormons are brain-washed robots, when, in fact, we are supposed to be a nation of prophets with our own revelation – all within a very basic framework of the Restored Gospel.

I like the fact that the Church provides general guidelines and then says, in essence, “Figure it out for your own situation and circumstances.”

Oh, and I LOVE the focus on orthopraxy over orthodoxy.

(emphasis added)

So, this very basic framework…how far does it spread. I mean, yes, it is a “very basic framework,” but it still must be a lasting framework, no?

Grinding your teeth at church is certainly not good in the long-run. Like I said, I go for now. I love my wife. She wouldn’t go anywhere else. At this point, I take the good with the bad but I do see a definite need for a change in my feelings or a change of venue.

I found a relatively close Unitarian Universalist church that I am going to visit. I need to speak with gays to seek how they reconcile Christianity and their homosexuality.

I do not see the church as a safe place for sharing differing opinions week after week. Unfortunately, when pushed into a corner, I can be very sarcastic. This dog needs a muzzle.

http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009/04/elusive-mormon-orthodoxy.html

re 24:

I understand your point, Hawkgrrrl, but even you would say that it cafeteria-based…to a degree. Yes, the religion is anti-creed, but this doesn’t not mean everything is permitted and everything is doctrine. I mean, your comment seems very nice and accepting, but I don’t think you want to suggest such an open church.

So, yes, we do not have a static orthodox view…but aren’t there some aspects that indeed are static and orthodox? I mean, the church would never conceivably drop Jesus Christ from its orthodox view…no amount of revelation could make that realistically happen. So, what are other ideas that the church could never conceivably ‘eliminate’ while still being the same church?

JTJ, regarding the definition of which god (of more than 500 gods), this brings up a slightly different idea…of theological noncognitivism. “Do you believe in God?” –> “I can’t answer that question, because the term god is meaningless — please specify what you mean first.”

I tend not to take such a position, because once again, I’m not taking a strong position. And secondly, I think that the term “God” does have some bare minimum considerations that are implied when the term is used universally. For example, I think that as a bare minimum, God has to be seen as mystical. He is not *merely* a product of the environment (and indeed even in definitions of gods that appear to ‘limit’ God — for example, LDS ideas of a god who ‘organizes’ materials rather than creating from nothing…there is still an idea of mysticism or divinity to God.) So, if I don’t believe in this minimum, then the details don’t really change that.

To hit your second part (with the Sam Harris link as well), I’m not an evangelist. I think that people should go to what makes sense for them, so I’m not going to try to peel away someone’s faith (which is meaningful to them) so that they go to my view. At best, if someone tries to limit *me* and someone tries to attack *me*, that’s when I will have to take defensive maneuvers, but if someone happens to believe in God and that is a net positive in their life, that alone isn’t problematic. If I’m going to put someone through the “typical rigors of rational thought,” then it will only be if I see that their faith is *not* providing a net positive in their life…they are struggling to try to believe, or in order to cater to the demands of their belief system, they are bringing undue stress to themselves, then I’ll try to help them out.

Greg, An honest agnostic/atheist is actually open to the reality of a deity, just as soon as we can find him/her/it/them in the natural world. Let’s not confuse Maher’s Ad Hominem attacks as being applicable to the evidence and arguments he or others presents.

Andrew, you lost me a bit on the knowledge belief paragraph. If someone asks if you believed in god, why not ask which one of the more than 500 gods we know do they believe in? And if someone asks if you believe in their god wouldn’t you put them through the typical rigors of rational thought. The short clip of Sam Harris vs. David Wolpe found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjhbccXIp4c&feature=channel_page illustrates.

Back on topic, I think you’ll always have people to the left and right of you, no matter where you are in the spectrum. Two orthodox believers can have the same level of disagreement about a doctrinal issue, just as two liberals, or both mixed together. If the church can stand the overzealous 10 year food, gun and ammo apocalyptic member, (you know who you are) they can certainly stand someone who doesn’t think the world was actually under water 4,000 years ago.