So a few things have become somewhat clearer to me lately.
One is that Mormon theology is really anticreedal, which rankles plenty of people in the classical Christian world. Or rather, critics of the Church tend to think that we hold onto obscure statements that reveal prejudices of prophets, as well as a few less-obscure ones, as creed or doctrine. Turns out this isn't true. Brigham Young had his share of wacky statements, plenty of which I disagree with, a few vehemently. Even though his fiery temperament would lead him to use rhetoric devices that usually frame prophecy and statements of doctrine ("Thus saith the Lord," etc.), only that which is found in the standard works or accepted by the Twelve and the body of the Church upon the President of the Church revealing it. So no matter what Brigham Young says after "The word of the Lord is...", if it isn't taught in the scriptures, if it isn't approved by the entire Twelve, it isn't doctrine. We don't care nearly as much about orthodoxy (with a small core of notable exceptions comprising what the missionaries teach) as we do about orthopraxy. Does it matter if I believe that God is the "master chess player," his omniscience being the result of perfect prediction rather than extensive definite foreknowledge? Does it matter if I think that the black race is inferior (which I don't), so long as I still practice charity toward them? Does it matter if I think that I'll receive a squadron of additional wives upon exaltation? Nope. The Church isn't some Orwellian construct that controls the thoughts of its members, no matter how repulsive, but it does reserve the right to discipline members based on their actions. ...What was my point? Oh yeah, creeds. Except for a relatively small number of things, nobody must believe anything in the Church. So I keep this in mind when I hear things that Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, or even Joseph Smith said that seem contradictory to the doctrines I know: they were fallible men like the prophets and apostles of the Bible. Does this make them liars? Sure, if you mean "somebody who has lied before"; try to find two people who have never lied, intentionally or otherwise. They make mistakes, they voice opinions as fact, but that doesn't make the Church a mistake.
Also, speaking of mistakes, what happens if a couple divorces? Was the marriage a mistake from the beginning? Few people would vocalize this, but my own experience is that such an irrational belief could worm its way into the subconscious of somebody who comes from a broken home. And let's face it: irrational beliefs are the hardest ones to break, particularly if we want to condemn somebody else as being the "cause" of the precipitating event. So, in talking with somebody recently, I brought this up; and my belief was smashed by an emotionally-charged idea (in other words, an irrational solution to an irrational problem).
Was the marriage that ended in divorce a mistake from the beginning?
Then, how could the mistake be avoided? Not marrying at all? Murder?
Barring those two options, let's say that you enter into the marriage despite it being a mistake by virtue of its eventual end. You move in together and have many happy times, at least for a week (let's say it's a typical marriage in Hollywood). What if you have a child? What if you have children? Are they mistakes?
Am I a mistake?
I sure hope not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Two very good thoughts. Onto the first one.
The thing I like about the church is that the core basics are what is needed to believe. You've got the first and foremost of believing in God, and then things stem out from there. So when someone finds out that one of those way out on the borderline things, I don't believe in, I tell them I still have faith, I can still be a good member, I just have problems with this thing or that thing. Everyone will have a problem with something. But as long as you've got the basics you should do just fine. Encountering those who's testimony is based on deep doctrine? Well that's another story. Boy Howdy.
Second. "Was the marriage that ended in divorce a mistake from the beginning?" I can't think of a single one that was. I mean probably one's the are full of only physical abuse, sure those could probably be considered. But overall I have to vehemently say No. Why? Cause everyone learns from things. The bad marriage may have been a learning stage for the participants so that they would be ready for something else in the future. Sure on one side when it comes to kids of a broken marriage they look at themselves and think they couldn't be good for marriage. But on the flip side, they may also be prepared to see when a bad relationship is ahead, and be able to choose one in which would benefit the two of them the most. I had a particularly bad three week relationship in the fall of 06. It was amazing in the fact that since then, I've been able to see those signs coming a long time before. However before the relationship I couldn't. A failed marriage may teach someone to for instance not go head strong into something in which outside forces are telling you is the right decision. Besides, failed marriages, usually fail in the last 1/8th or some other fraction like that of the marriage. Was the other 7/8ths no good even though you remember them to be good? That doesn't make sense to me. Sorry to be so long winded on this but I've never agreed with that statement for cases minus the extreme ones.
Word...if this were the case, I wouldn't have parents (or rather, I wouldn't have a dad). This isn't your normal Jimbles post, but I like it. I'm proud of you.
Post a Comment